Greer v. Harreld et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
STEVEN E. GREER,
Plaintiff,
v.
SUSAN HARRELD, et al.,
Defendants.
Civil Action 2:24-cv-1237
Chief Judge Sarah D. Morrison
Magistrate Judge Chelsey M. Vascura
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions Pursuant to FRCP 37.
(ECF No. 148.) Therein, Plaintiff seeks the imposition of sanctions against Defendants under
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 37(b) and 37(d).
“The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure set forth the discovery obligations of parties and
their attorneys, and authorize federal courts to impose sanctions on those who fail to meet these
obligations.” United States v. Quebe, 321 F.R.D. 303, 310 (S.D. Ohio 2017) (quoting Laukus v.
Rio Brands, Inc., 292 F.R.D. 485, 500–01 (N.D. Ohio 2013)). “Under Fed. R. Civ. P.
37(b)(2)(C), a district court may sanction parties who fail to comply with its orders . . . .” Bass v.
Jostens, Inc., 71 F.3d 237, 241 (6th Cir. 1995) (citing Bank One of Cleveland, N.A. v. Abbe, 916
F.2d 1067, 1073 (6th Cir. 1990)). Similarly, Rule 37(d) provides for sanctions against a party
who “fails to serve its answers, objections, or written response” to “interrogatories under Rule 33
or a request for inspection under Rule 34.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(d)(1)(A)(ii); see also, e.g., Beil v.
Lakewood Eng’g & Mfg. Co., 15 F.3d 546, 552 (6th Cir. 1994).
Case: 2:24-cv-01237-SDM-CMV Doc #: 149 Filed: 03/05/26 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>

2
Based on the parties’ representations during the February 24, 2026 discovery conference,
Defendants served their written responses and objections to Plaintiff’s interrogatories and
requests for production of documents shortly before that date. (See Order Memorializing Feb. 24,
2026 Conference, ECF No. 142.) And Plaintiff’s Motion reflects that, as ordered by the
undersigned on February 24, 2026, Defendants responded to Plaintiff’s enumerated complaints
concerning Defendants’ written discovery responses on March 3, 2026. (See March 3, 2026
Letter, ECF No. 148-3).
Plaintiff therefore has not demonstrated that Defendants either (1) failed to respond to his
discovery requests, as would support sanctions under Rule 37(d), or (2) failed to comply with a
court order relating to discovery, as would support sanctions under Rule 37(b). Having
established no grounds for the imposition of sanctions, Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions Pursuant
to FRCP 37 (ECF No. 148) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Chelsey M. Vascura
CHELSEY M. VASCURA
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case: 2:24-cv-01237-SDM-CMV Doc #: 149 Filed: 03/05/26 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>