In Cunningham v. Winkleman, the defendants filed a motion to compel plaintiff Robert Cunningham to respond to their discovery requests, which he had repeatedly failed to answer. The defendants initially served the discovery requests on March 24, 2025, but received no response. After multiple follow-up letters and extensions, Cunningham still failed to provide substantive answers. The defendants requested that the court compel responses and sought monetary sanctions under Rule 37 Sanctions. In opposition, Cunningham cited challenges related to his incarceration but did not raise objections to the content of the discovery requests.
The court acknowledged that Cunningham’s status as a self-represented inmate presented logistical difficulties. However, it emphasized that discovery obligations cannot be waived based solely on incarceration. The plaintiff chose to bring this lawsuit, and therefore, he is responsible for complying with discovery rules. Since he made no legal objections to the requests, such as relevance or privilege, his failure to respond was deemed unjustifiable. The court noted that Rule 37 provides a mechanism for enforcing compliance and ensuring fairness in the discovery process.
Rule 37(a)(5) requires courts to impose sanctions, including payment of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs, when a motion to compel is granted unless certain exceptions apply. These exceptions include situations where the moving party did not act in good faith to resolve the issue beforehand, where the noncompliant party’s position was substantially justified, or where awarding expenses would be unjust. The court found that the defendants acted in good faith by repeatedly warning Cunningham and providing extensions. Moreover, Cunningham’s reasons for noncompliance, such as prison limitations and indigency, did not amount to substantial justification under the rule.
While the court recognized the mandatory nature of Rule 37 sanctions, it considered whether Cunningham’s indigency and pro se status constituted “other circumstances” that would make awarding expenses unjust. Although courts differ on this issue, the court concluded that imposing monetary sanctions at this time would be inequitable given Cunningham’s limited resources and technical restraints. However, it cautioned that this leniency was temporary and would not excuse future noncompliance. The court warned that continued failure to participate in discovery could lead to more severe sanctions, including dismissal of the case under Rule 37(b)(2)(A)(v).
Ultimately, the court granted the motion to compel and ordered Cunningham to respond to the discovery requests by October 3, 2025. It declined to award expenses at this stage but reminded Cunningham that his obligations under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure remain in force. The ruling underscores Rule 37’s balance between enforcing discovery compliance and considering the unique challenges faced by indigent, self-represented litigants. The decision signals that while courts may show temporary leniency, persistent disregard for discovery rules will result in escalating consequences.
If your organization is seeking support with eDiscovery, our team has solutions to address all phases of the discovery process. At CODISCOVR, we deliver client-focused, defensible, and scalable solutions using advanced technology and intelligent review practices to meet eDiscovery, document review, and information governance needs in a manner that reduces the risks and costs associated with electronically stored information (ESI). Reach out to Shari Coltoff at CODISCOVR for more information. Shari has over 20 years of experience in the ever-evolving eDiscovery life cycle, from document collection to managing large long-term reviews through productions.
