LaCroix et al v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Insurance Company, No. 2:2009cv00609 - Document 24 (E.D. La. 2009)
Court Description: ORDER AND OPINION denying 21 MOTION to Dismiss All of Plaintiffs' Claims filed by State Farm Fire and Casualty Company. Signed by Judge Stanwood R. Duval, Jr on 12/21/09.(blg)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA DAVID AND VENITA LACROIX CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO. 09-0609 STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY SECTION K (4) ORDER AND OPINION Before the Court is the Motion to Dismiss All Of Plaintiffs Claims filed on behalf of defendant State Farm Fire and Casualty Company ( State Farm ) (Doc. 21). Having reviewed the pleadings, memoranda, and relevant law, the Court, for the reasons assigned, DENIES the motion. BACKGROUND Plaintiffs David and Venita LaCroix filed suit against State Farm seeking damages based on their allegations that their home, which State Farm insured under a homeowner s policy, sustained damages due to Hurricane Katrina, for which they had not been compensated. On May 18, 2009, State Farm propounded interrogatories and requests for production of documents upon plaintiffs. Thereafter on June 25, 2009, State Farm propounded a First Supplemental Request for Production of Documents upon the LaCroixs. Plaintiffs failed to respond to the discovery despite State Farm granting them a twenty (20) day extension within which to respond to the discovery. Ultimately State Farm filed a Motion to Compel Plaintiffs Responses to Interrogatories and Requests for Production (Doc. 13); plaintiffs did not file an opposition to the motion. Thereafter, United States Magistrate Judge Karen Wells Roby granted State Farm s motion to compel and ordered the LaCroixs to provide complete responses to State Farms Revised Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents no later than [November 21, 2009]. (Doc. 18). When plaintiff s failed to comply with Magistrate Roby s order, State Farm filed this motion to dismiss with prejudice all of plaintiffs claims pursuant to Rule 37(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiffs responded to State Farm s discovery on December 15, 2009, the same date they filed their opposition to State Farms motion to dismiss. LAW AND ANALYSIS Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b)(2) empowers a district court to impost just sanctions on parties who disobey a discovery order. F.D.I.C. v. Conner, 20 F.3d 1376, 1380 (5th Cir. 1994). Dismissal of an action is one of the permissible sanctions identified in Rule 37(b)(2). However, the Fifth Circuit has repeatedly emphasized that a dismissal with prejudice is a draconian remedy, or a remedy of last resort. Nissho-IWAI American Corporation v. Kline, 845 F.2d 1300, 1304 (5th Cir. 1988). Dismissal of a case may be ordered as a sanction for violating a discovery order only when the following conditions are met: 1) when the refusal to comply results from willfulness or bad faith and is accompanied by a clear record of delay or contumacious conduct; 2) when the violation of the discovery order is attributable to the client, as opposed to counsel; 3) when the non-compliant party s conduct substantially prejudices the opposing party; and 4) when a less drastic sanction would not substantially achieve the desired deterrent effect. F.D.I.C. v. Conner, 30 F.3d at 1380-81, citing Coane v. Ferrara Pan Candy Co., 898 F.2d 1030, 1032 (5th Cir. 1990). The requisite conditions for dismissal of the suit are not present. Even assuming that the failure to comply with the discovery order resulted from willfulness or bad faith, this single violation of a discovery order does not establish a clear record of delay or contumacious conduct. 2 Additionally, there is no indication in the record that the violation of the discovery order resulted from any action or inaction on the part of the LaCroixs. Nor is the Court persuaded that plaintiff s failure to comply with the order substantially prejudiced State Farm. Moreover, the Court concludes that a warning will suffice to deter plaintiffs from violating any future Court orders. The Court hereby notifies both the LaCroixs and all of their counsel, that sanctions will be imposed for any future violation of a Court order. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss All of Plaintiffs Claims filed on behalf of defendant State Farm Fire and Casualty Company (Doc. 21) is DENIED . New Orleans, Louisiana, this 21st day of December, 2009. STANWOOD R. DUVAL, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 3
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
