Goding v. Saaranen et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
NORTHERN DIVISION
DEAN GODING, 	Case No. 	2:24-cv-00001
Plaintiff, 	Hon. 	Paul L. Maloney
U.S. District Judge
v.
JOSHUA SAARANEN, et al.,
Defendants.
/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
I. 	Introduction
This is a civil rights action brought by Dean Goding pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. 	Goding alleges that he was an inmate in the Houghton County Jail.
Goding alleges that he was assaulted by another Houghton County Jail inmate on
January 5, 2021. 	Goding says that Defendants failed to prevent the assault.
Defendants move to dismiss the case under Fed. R. Civ. P 41 because Plaintiff
cancelled two scheduled depositions due to unexpected incarcerations. 	(ECF No.
96.) 	Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s incarcerations are not a reasonable excuse for
failing to participate in depositions. 	(Id., PageID.96.)
At the time Plaintiff filed his complaint, he was incarcerated in federal prison.
On August 2, 2024, the Court entered a stay of proceedings until Plaintiff was
released from prison in November 2024. 	(ECF No. 18.) 	On December 2, 2024, the
Court entered an Amended Case Management Order. 	(ECF No. 23.) 	Discovery
was set to end on June 30, 2025. 	(Id.) 	Defendants noticed Plaintiff’s deposition for
June 16, 2025. 	(ECF No. 35, PageID.97.) 	Just before the scheduled deposition,
Case 2:24-cv-00001-PLM-MV ECF No. 39, PageID.<pageID> Filed 12/19/25 Page 1
of 4

Plaintiff was arrested and placed in the Crawford County Jail. 	Plaintiff’s counsel
notified defense counsel the morning of the deposition and the deposition was
canceled. 	Defendants were charged $150.00 due to the late cancellation.
On August 20,2025, the Court entered an order extending discovery until
October 15, 2025. 	(ECF No. 31.) 	Defendants rescheduled Plaintiff’s deposition to
be taken on October 2, 2025. 	On September 30, 2025, Plaintiff’s counsel informed
defense 	counsel 	that 	Plaintiff 	was 	again 	incarcerated 	in 	federal 	prison, 	in
Pennsylvania. 	The deposition was cancelled. 	Defendants represent that Plaintiff
is scheduled for release from federal prison on June 10, 2026.1
Defendants move to dismiss this case for failure to prosecute due to Plaintiff’s
incarceration and his inability to attend the scheduled depositions while he was
incarcerated.
II. 	Analysis
Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) provides that where a Plaintiff fails to prosecute or comply
with the rules or a court order, a defendant may move to dismiss the action or any
claim against it. 	More specifically, Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(d)(1)(A)(i) provides that when
a party fails to attend his own deposition, after being properly notified, he or she may
be sanctioned by the court. 	Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A)(v) and 37(d)(3),
sanctions may include dismissal.
The Sixth Circuit addressed this issue in Woodson v. Morris, 1995 WL 69243,
70 F.3d 1273 (6th Cir. 1995). 	In Woodson, the court noted that the plaintiff had
1 	The federal Bureau of Prisoners (BOP) online prisoner locator confirms that
Goding is scheduled to be released June 10, 2026.
Case 2:24-cv-00001-PLM-MV ECF No. 39, PageID.<pageID> Filed 12/19/25 Page 2
of 4

- 3 -
adequate advance notice of the date of the deposition, but willfully refused to
participate in the deposition. 	The court held that the district court properly granted
the defendant’s motion for dismissal pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 and 41(b). 	Id.,
at *1. 	Dismissal is appropriate where Plaintiff fails to attend an ordered deposition.
Voit v. Jefferson County Sheriff’s Dep’t, 31 F. App’x. 189 (6th Cir. 2002). 	It is not an
abuse of discretion for the trial court to impose sanctions due to a party’s failure to
participate in discovery:
Rule 37(b)(2) authorizes a district court to enter a default judgment and
dismiss a case where the sanctioned party failed to obey an order to
provide or permit discovery. 	This court considers four factors in
assessing the appropriateness of the district court's decision to dismiss
a complaint: (1) whether the party's failure to cooperate in discovery is
due to willfulness, bad faith, or fault; (2) whether the adversary was
prejudiced by the dismissed party's failure to cooperate in discovery; (3)
whether the dismissed party was warned that failure to cooperate could
lead to dismissal; and (4) whether less drastic sanctions were imposed
or considered before dismissal was ordered. Harmon [v. CSX Trsp., Inc.],
110 F.3d [364] at 366–67 [(6th Cir. 1997)]. Pre-dismissal warning of the
sanction is pivotal to the determination of willfulness. See Harris v.
Callwood, 844 F.2d 1254, 1256 (6th Cir.1988). Dismissal with prejudice
“should be imposed only if the court concludes that the party's failure to
cooperate in discovery was willful, in bad faith, or due to its own fault.”
Beil v. Lakewood Eng'g & Mfg. Co., 15 F.3d 546, 552 (6th Cir.1994).
Wittman v. Wilson, 95 F. App’x 752, 754 (6th Cir. 2004).
Looking at the factors set forth above: 	Plaintiff could not attend his scheduled
depositions because he was incarcerated. 	Defendants have failed to show that
Plaintiff acted willfully or in bad faith in failing to appear at his depositions. 	The
Court further notes that Defendants twice scheduled the depositions just before the
close of the discovery periods. 	In addition, the Court did not warn Plaintiff that his
Case 2:24-cv-00001-PLM-MV ECF No. 39, PageID.<pageID> Filed 12/19/25 Page 3
of 4

- 4 -
failure to attend a scheduled deposition due to his incarceration could result in the
dismissal of this action.
Further, Defendants have not set forth any reasons why they were unable to
take Plaintiff’s deposition while he was incarcerated in the Crawford County Jail, or
while he is incarcerated in federal prison. 	In the opinion of the undersigned,
dismissal of this action is not appropriate under these facts.
Nevertheless, Defendants did have to pay a late cancellation fee of $150.00.
Plaintiff should reimburse Defendants the cost of the late cancellation fee.
III. 	Recommendation
Accordingly, it is recommended that the Court deny Defendants’ motion to
dismiss this case but require Plaintiff to reimburse Defendants $150.00 for the late
deposition cancellation fee.
NOTICE TO PARTIES: 	Objections to this Report and Recommendation must
be served on opposing parties and filed with the Clerk of the Court within fourteen
(14) days of receipt of this Report and Recommendation. 	28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1)(C);
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); W.D. Mich. LCivR 72.3(b). 	Failure to file timely objections
constitutes a waiver of any further right to appeal. 	United States v. Walters, 638
F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981). 	See also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985).
Dated: 	December 19, 2025 	/s/ `ttÜàxÇ ixÜÅttà
MAARTEN VERMAAT
U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 2:24-cv-00001-PLM-MV ECF No. 39, PageID.<pageID> Filed 12/19/25 Page 4
of 4