District Judge Margaret R. Guzman: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered granting 23 MOTION for Dismissal of the Action Due to Plaintiff's Failure to Answer Interrogatories or Provide Responses to Requests for Documents by Department of Transitional Assistance.On December 30, 2024, the Court issued a scheduling order providing for a September 5, 2025 close of fact discovery. [ECF Nos. 18 & 19]. Defendant served interrogatories and document requests on Plaintiff on February 6, 2025, nearly seven months before the close of discovery. [ECF No. 23]. On September 9, 2025, Defendant filed its motion for dismissal as Plaintiff had not responded to Defendants requests and fact discovery closed. [ECF No. 20].
On August 6, 2026, the Court denied Defendant's motion without prejudice because the discovery requests attached to the motion were incorrectly dated and permitted Defendant to refile the motion. [ECF No. 22]. Defendant filed the present motion on August 7, 2026, attaching an email that Defendant represents shows service of the discovery requests on Plaintiff's counsel on February 6, 2025. [ECF No. 23].
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 37(d) provides that a court may order sanctions if a party, after being properly served with interrogatories under Rule 33... fails to serve its answers, objections, or written response. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(d)(1)(A)(ii). Upon such a failure, the court may appropriately select from several sanctions, including dismissing the action... in whole or in part[.] Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A)(v). [T]he selection of an appropriate sanction is peculiarly within the province of the district court, Mulero-Abreu v. Puerto Rico Police Dep't, 675 F.3d 88, 91 (1st Cir. 2012), and the Court need not first exhaust milder sanctions before resorting to dismissal. Angulo-Alvarez v. Aponte de la Torre, 170 F.3d 246, 252 (1st Cir. 1999) (quoting Ruiz v. Alegria, 896 F.2d 645, 649 (1st Cir.1990)).
Nearly eleven months have passed since the close of fact discovery, Plaintiff has failed to respond to Defendants discovery requests and has offered no explanation for her failure to comply with her discovery obligations. Plaintiff did not file an opposition to Defendants September 9, 2025 motion or otherwise seek relief from her discovery obligations.
Accordingly, the Court will dismiss this action without prejudice for failure to comply with discovery obligations. Plaintiff may, within fourteen days of this Order, by August 24, 2026 show cause in writing why this action should not be dismissed pursuant to Rule 37(d)(3). Any such filing shall explain Plaintiff's failure to respond to Defendant's discovery requests and shall identify any responses, objections, motions, extensions, or other circumstances relevant to that failure.
(SF)