Vehse et al v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company

Middle District of Florida, flmd-8:2016-cv-00599

ORDER granting in part and denying in part {{32}} Motion for Order to Show Cause and for Sanctions. Signed by Magistrate Judge Julie S. Sneed on 12/2/2016. (JR)

Interested in this case?

Current View

Full Text

PageID 599 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION GOETZ D. VEHSE, Plaintiff, v. Case No: 8:16-cv-599-T-33JSS LIBERTY MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. ___________________________________/ ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendant's Motion for Order to Show Cause and for Sanctions. (Dkt. 32.) Defendant moves for an order to show cause and sanctions against Plaintiff's disclosed expert, Sonny Gulati, P.E., and for an order excluding Mr. Gulati as a witness in this litigation on the basis that Mr. Gulati twice failed to appear for his deposition. A hearing was held on this matter on December 1, 2016, before the undersigned. For the reasons stated at the hearing, it is ORDERED that Defendant's Motion for Order to Show Cause and for Sanctions (Dkt. 32) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Mr. Gulati is hereby ordered to appear for his deposition by December 8, 2016. Plaintiff shall pay Defendant its reasonable attorneys' fees and costs associated with Mr. Gulati's failure to appear at his deposition on October 6, 2016, and November 7, 2016, and the costs and fees incurred in filing the Motion for Order to Show Cause and for Sanctions. See Valente v. J.C. Penney Corp., 437 F. App'x 858, 860 (11th Cir. 2011) (providing that matters pertaining to discovery are committed to the sound discretion of the district court, including orders imposing discovery sanctions); In re Sunshine Jr. Stores, Inc., 456 F.3d 1291, 1304 (11th Cir. 2006) (providing that "[f]ederal courts have the inherent power to impose sanctions on parties, lawyers, or both" when a party delays or disrupts the litigation); Fed. R. Civ. PageID 600 P. 45(g) (providing that the court may hold in contempt a person who, having been served, fails without adequate excuse to obey a subpoena). DONE and ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, on December 2, 2016. Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record -2-