EDWARD C. PRADO, United States District Judge.
On this date, the Court considered Plaintiffs' First Amended Motion for Reconsideration of Court's Sanction Order of November 14, 2001, filed January 14, 2002, and the United States's response thereto, filed January 22, 2002. Having considered such motion and response, the Court will grant Plaintiffs' motion to reconsider; vacate the portion of the November 19, 2001, order that struck Plaintiffs' experts, witnesses, and exhibits; and impose sanctions against Plaintiffs' attorney.
On November 19, 2001, this Court issued an order sanctioning Plaintiffs by striking all of their experts, witnesses, and exhibits that had not been timely designated. This sanction followed a period of total inactivity by the Plaintiffs between May 24, 2001, until September 17, 2001. During that period of inactivity, Plaintiffs, among other things, failed to comply with this Court's scheduling order and this Court's order compelling discovery responses. Only after Defendants filed their motion for sanctions and dismissal did Plaintiffs respond to discovery requests, serve their designations, and begin to prosecute their case. Plaintiffs now submit the instant motion for reconsideration, claiming that Plaintiffs' attorney was at fault for the delays due to personal problems and that Plaintiffs have since fully complied with all discovery requests. Plaintiffs' attorney requests that this Court impose a lesser sanction than that imposed by this Court's November 19, 2001, which struck all untimely designated experts, witnesses, and exhibits.
After careful consideration, the Court finds that the Plaintiffs' repeated failure to prosecute this case and comply with this Court's orders is the error of Plaintiffs' attorney. As such, sanctions, once determined, will be imposed against Plaintiffs' attorney, not Plaintiffs. Therefore, the Court ORDERS Defendants to file an affidavit with the Court by February 27, 2002, setting forth the reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, associated with Plaintiffs' attorney's late compliance with this Court's discovery orders. The Court further ORDERS Plaintiffs to respond to Defendants' affidavits by March 15, 2002.
Because deterrence is one of the main goals of imposing sanctions, a monetary sanction sufficient to deter future misconduct may fall short of full compensation to the inconvenienced party. Kiser v. Boeing Co., 163 F.R.D. 13, 15 (D. Kan. 1995).
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs' amended motion to reconsider (docket entry #36); VACATES that portion of the Court's November 19, 2001, order striking Plaintiffs' untimely designation of experts, witnesses, and exhibits; ORDERS Plaintiffs to file their designation of potential witnesses, designation of testifying experts, and list of proposed exhibits by March 1, 2002; and DENIES as moot Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file motion for rehearing (docket entry #35). Additionally, to mitigate the prejudice caused by Plaintiffs' attorney's dilatory conduct and to accommodate the Court's crowded docket, the Court VACATES the current trial date of February 19, 2002, RESCHEDULES this jury trial and selection for May 20, 2002, and therefore ENTERS the following amendments to the scheduling order:
7. All dispositive motions shall be filed no later than March 29, 2002 . Dispositive motions as defined in Local Rule CV-7(h) and responses to dispositive motions shall be limited to 20 pages in length.
8. This case is set for JURY SELECTION AND TRIAL on May 20, 2002 at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom No. 3, First Floor of the United States Courthouse, 511 E. San Antonio Street, El Paso, Texas. The parties shall file their pretrial submissions in the form set out in Rule CV-16(e) of the Local Rules for the Western District not later than May 6, 2002 .