Preview:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ROCK HILL DIVISION
Interiors, Ltd. of Rock Hill,                                                                       )   C/A No.: 0:08-4018-JFA
                                                                                                    )
Plaintiff,                                                                                          )
                                                                                                    )
vs.                                                                                                 )
                                                                                                    )   ORDER GRANTING SANCTIONS
Patricia Lancaster Piner; Ben R.                                                                    )
Piner, Jr.; Charles Patrick Poole;                                                                  )
Marcia B. Lancaster; and Pamela                                                                     )
Lancaster Leonard,                                                                                  )
)
Defendants.                                                                                         )
)
This matter comes before the court on plaintiff’s motion for sanctions [dkt. # 61].
Plaintiff filed its motion on December 22, 2009; no defendant answered to meet plaintiff’s
allegations.   The court notes that this is the seventh motion filed by the plaintiff relating to
discovery requests.
Plaintiff’s motion relates to discovery sought in its second interrogatories and its
request for admission.   The desired discovery, served on July 2, 2009, sought information
about the identification of payment records that the defendants claim to have made for
plaintiff’s merchandise as well as merchandise the defendants deny receiving.  In response
to the defendants’ obstinance, the plaintiff seeks to prevent the defendants from introducing
evidence  or  testimony at  trial  concerning  payments  claimed  that  are  not  reflected  in
plaintiff’s accounts.   The defendants’ alleged payments that are not reflected in plaintiff’s
accounts are itemized below:




Defendant Charles Patrick Poole
January 2005:                                                                                       $14,000 (cash)
Defendant Marcia B. Lancaster
January 2003:                                                                                       $75.00 (check 1305)
November 2003:                                                                                      $2,000.00 (check 1366)
May 2004:                                                                                           $8,470.00 (Visa)
October 2004:                                                                                       $1,000.00 (Visa)
November 2004                                                                                       $140.00 (check 1466)
July 2005                                                                                           $2,606 (Visa)
Defendant Pamela Lancaster Leonard
August 2002:                                                                                        $800.00 (Visa)
December 2002/03:  $223.00 (check 9190)
April 2003:                                                                                         $920.00 (Visa)
September 2003:                                                                                     $3,920.00 (check 9716)
May 2004:                                                                                           $529.20 (Visa)
Plaintiff argues that barring the above payments as a defense in this case is warranted
by the defendants’ history of noncompliance with court orders requiring affirmative action.
In support of its argument, plaintiff asserts that the defendants have failed to pay the sanction
of $975.00 levied in the court’s August 3, 2009 order [dkt. # 55].
Rule 37(d)(1)(ii) provides that a court, on motion, may order sanctions for failure to
respond to interrogatories.   The rule provides that sanctions may include prohibiting the a
party from supporting or opposing designated defenses, or from introducing designated
matters into evidence.   Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(d)(3).   The court finds the desired sanctions
appropriate  considering  the  circumstances of the  case and authorized under Rule                 37.
Accordingly,  the  court  hereby prohibits  the  defendants  from  submitting  testimony or
evidence at trial concerning the payments alleged above.
2




IT IS SO ORDERED.
January 28, 2010           Joseph F. Anderson, Jr.
Columbia, South Carolina   United States District Judge
3

Download 27844.pdf

South Carolina Law