## Facts

- Advance Financial Corp. (AFC) sued Utsey and other defendants in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Alabama.
- The magistrate judge set deadlines for (1) the written report required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f), (2) initial disclosures under Rule 26(a)(1), and (3) completion of discovery.
- The parties did not submit the Rule 26(f) report by the original deadline. At defense counsel’s request, the court extended the deadline.
- After the extended deadline passed without a joint report, the court ordered the parties to file the report or show cause why they could not.
- AFC’s counsel conferred with defense counsel by telephone and sent a draft Rule 26(f) report to defense counsel for additions and signature.
- Defense counsel did not respond, so AFC filed the report without defense counsel’s input or signature.
- Defendants failed to provide Rule 26(a)(1) initial disclosures by the court-ordered deadline.
- AFC moved for sanctions. The court granted defendants an extension of time to provide initial disclosures.
- Defendants again failed to timely provide their initial disclosures, and AFC filed a second motion for sanctions.
- Defendants also failed to produce documents requested in a deposition notice duces tecum, forcing AFC to cancel scheduled depositions.
- The court ordered defendants to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed. Defendants did not respond to the show-cause order.
- AFC filed a third motion for sanctions.
- At an oral hearing, defense counsel attributed the failures to medical problems, including eye surgery the week before the hearing.
- The magistrate judge recommended that AFC’s sanctions motion be granted and that default judgment be entered against defendants.
- No party filed objections to the recommendation. The district judge adopted it and entered default judgment against defendants.

## Issues

1. Whether defendants’ repeated failures to participate in Rule 26(f) reporting, provide Rule 26(a)(1) initial disclosures (even after an extension), and produce deposition documents—along with ignoring a show-cause order—justified default judgment as a discovery sanction under Rule 37.
2. Whether defense counsel’s medical explanations excused the pattern of missed deadlines and noncompliance so that a lesser sanction should be imposed instead of default.

## Decision

- The district court adopted the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) after no objections were filed.
- The court granted AFC’s motion for sanctions.
- The court entered judgment by default against the defendants as a sanction for discovery violations.

## Legal Principles

- Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 authorizes severe sanctions, including default judgment, when a party fails to comply with discovery obligations and court orders.
- Default judgment is a severe remedy generally reserved for repeated, willful, or bad-faith noncompliance that disrupts case management and harms the opposing party’s ability to obtain discovery.
- Missing Rule 26(f) planning-report obligations and Rule 26(a)(1) initial-disclosure deadlines—particularly after extensions—may support terminating sanctions when the failures continue and impede progress of the case.
- Failure to produce documents requested for deposition, causing cancellation of depositions, supports a finding of meaningful prejudice to the party seeking discovery.
- Ignoring a show-cause order weighs heavily in favor of strong sanctions because it reflects disregard for the court’s directives and leaves the court without assurance that future orders will be followed.
- A court may consider counsel’s health issues, but an explanation offered late in the process may be rejected when it does not account for the length and scope of noncompliance.

## Conclusion

Advance Financial Corp. v. Utsey resulted in default judgment because defendants repeatedly failed to meet core discovery and pretrial requirements—missing Rule 26(f) and Rule 26(a)(1) deadlines despite extensions, failing to produce deposition documents, and not responding to a show-cause order—and the district court adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation that these violations warranted the Rule 37 sanction of default.


Advance Financial Corp. v. Utsey, 2001 WL 102484 (2001)