1. Plaintiff's Unredacted Documents. Paragraph 1 of the May 13 Order required that Plaintiff produce to Defendant unredacted versions of the documents with Bates stamp numbers A451-A466 and A783-A955 by May 20, 2021. (See 5/13/21 Order ¶ 1.) Plaintiff failed to do so. (See Def.’s 6/2/21 Ltr. at 5-6; Pl.’s 6/7/21 Ltr. at 6-7.) No later than 11:59 p.m. EDT on Monday, June 21, 2021, Plaintiff shall produce to Defendant, via email to the same email address(es) to which Plaintiff has sent prior productions to Defendant, unredacted versions of these documents.[2] Alternatively, no later than Monday, June 21, 2021, Plaintiff may send unredacted versions of the foregoing documents via DHL courier to Defendant's counsel at Day Pitney LLP's address, in which case Plaintiff shall email a copy of the DHL receipt to Defendant's counsel no later than 11:59 p.m. EDT on Monday, June 21, 2021. Failure to comply with this paragraph shall result in Plaintiff being precluded from using these documents during pretrial proceedings or at trial, and may result in the imposition of sanctions against Plaintiff up to and including my recommendation to District Judge Nathan that his claims be dismissed.

2. Information Needed To Re-Serve Plaintiff. Paragraph 2 of the May 13 Order required that Plaintiff either (a) provide Defendant with Box.com account information or a mailing address to enable Defendant to re-serve certain electronic documents, or (b) agree that Defendant could wait to re-serve such documents until Plaintiff returned to the United States from abroad.[3] (See 5/13/21 Order ¶ 2.) Plaintiff provided Defendant with credentials for a Box.com account, including a username clearly created by Plaintiff with the specific aim of antagonizing Defendant's counsel.[4] (See Def.’s 6/2/21 Ltr. at 3-4 & Ex. A.) Plaintiff is admonished for using his compliance with the May 13 Order as an opportunity to personally attack opposing counsel via quasi-defamatory innuendo, and Defendant is excused from any obligation to serve anything via this Box.com account. In light of his gamesmanship, Plaintiff has forfeited the option of being re-served via Box.com. If Plaintiff still wishes for Defendant to re-serve these electronic documents, then he shall, no later than 11:59 p.m. EDT on Monday, June 21, 2021, email Defendant a mailing address to which a thumb drive containing such documents may be sent, in which case Defendant shall serve such documents on that address within one week thereafter. Unless Plaintiff timely complies with the foregoing, Defendant is excused from any obligation to re-serve these electronic documents.

*2 3. Paragraphs 4(b) And 4(d) Of My February 11 Order. Paragraph 3 of the May 13 Order required that Plaintiff, no later than May 27, 2021, complete his production to Defendants of all documents within his possession, custody or control responsive to paragraphs 4(b) or 4(d) of my Order dated February 11, 2021 (those paragraphs corresponding to the second, third, fifth and seventh document requests in Defendant's letter dated January 8, 2021). (See 5/13/21 Order ¶ 3 (referencing 2/11/21 Order, ECF No. 208); Pl.’s 1/8/21 Ltr., ECF no. 182, at 2.) Apparently, in lieu of producing anything in response to this directive, Plaintiff filed an Objection to the May 13 Order, which he styled a “Motion to Partially Vacate Court's Order Dated 05/13/21.” (Def.’s 5/27/21 Obj., ECF No. 252; see Def.’s 6/2/21 Ltr. at 3-4; Pl.’s 6/7/21 Ltr. at 6.) Earlier today, District Judge Nathan rejected that Objection and adopted the May 13 Order in full.[5] (6/14/21 Mem. Op. & Order, ECF No. 267.) Accordingly, no later than 11:59 p.m. EDT, on Monday, June 21, 2021, Plaintiff shall complete his production, via email to the same email address(es) to which Plaintiff has sent prior productions to Defendant, of all documents responsive to subparagraphs 4(b) and 4(d) of my February 11 Order.[6] Alternatively, no later than Monday, June 21, 2021, Plaintiff may send the subject documents via DHL courier to Defendant's counsel at Day Pitney LLP's address, in which case Plaintiff shall email a copy of the DHL receipt to Defendant's counsel no later than 11:59 p.m. EDT on Monday, June 21, 2021. Plaintiff shall be precluded from using during pretrial proceedings or at trial any such document that he fails to produce in compliance with this paragraph; in addition, failure to comply with this paragraph may result in the imposition of sanctions up to and including my recommendation to District Judge Nathan that Plaintiff's claims be dismissed.

4. Plaintiff's Final Set of Document Requests. Paragraph 4 of the May 13 Order gave Plaintiff until May 27, 2021 to serve any final set of Requests for Documents, which could comprise up to 20 document requests, sub-parts included. (See 5/13/21 Order ¶ 4.) At the telephone conference held immediately prior to issuance of the May 13 Order, the Court explained to Plaintiff, through reference to Plaintiff's previously-served Eighth Requests for the Production of Documents (the “Eighth Requests”), that to the extent Plaintiff chose to serve requests that overlapped with previously-served requests, he was responsible for narrowing those prior requests to ensure that the new requests are not seeking information pertaining to dismissed claims or to rejected amended complaints:

*3 (5/13/21 Tr., ECF No. 256, at 14:10-15:6 (emphasis added).) On May 31, 2021—four days after the deadline provided for by the May 13 Order—Plaintiff emailed Defendant a letter purporting to describe a set of 19 document requests, largely via reference to an enclosed copy of the Eighth Requests. (See Def.’s 6/2/21 Ltr. at 6 & Ex. F; Pl.’s 6/7/21 Ltr. at 7.) Notwithstanding the Court's instructions regarding sub-parts, Plaintiff defined one of his “new” requests as the combination of fifteen of the separate requests listed in the Eighth Requests. (See Def.’s 6/2/21 Ltr. at 6 & Ex. F.) Moreover, all but one of Plaintiff's other “new” requests are simply reissued prior requests, several of which encompass dismissed claims, including Plaintiff's gender discrimination claims, and/or the rejected Fourth Amended Complaint.[7] Thus, Plaintiff's document requests are not only untimely but also in blatant violation of the Court's directives at the May 13 telephone conference and in the May 13 Order. Finally, and in any event, the Court finds Plaintiff's identified requests to be disproportional to the needs of the case, taking into account the parties’ document production to date. (See 5/13/21 Order at 2 n.1.) Accordingly, Defendant is relieved from any obligation to respond to, object to or produce documents responsive to this final set of Plaintiff's document requests.

5. Defendant's Final Document Request. Paragraph 5 of the May 13 Order gave Defendant until May 27, 2021 to serve a final document request concerning Plaintiff's efforts to mitigate his damages, and gave Plaintiff until June 3, 2021 to serve responses and/or objections thereto. (See 5/13/21 Order ¶ 5, 6.) On May 27, 2021, Defendant served that request. (See Def.’s 6/2/21 Ltr. at 2 n.2.) No later than Monday, June 21, 2021, Plaintiff shall produce to Defendant (by email or DHL courier, as above) all documents responsive to that request and not subject to any objection he served by June 3, 2021. Any objection to that request that Plaintiff did not serve by June 3, 2021 is waived.

6. Depositions. Given that document discovery is nearly complete, depositions shall commence promptly and proceed as follows:

7. Appeals To The Second Circuit Do Not Stay Proceedings Before This Court. Plaintiff is advised that the fact that he has appealed several Orders in this action to the Second Circuit does not excuse Plaintiff's compliance with such Orders (or any other Order of this Court), because the Second Circuit has not issued any stay of those Orders. To be clear: Plaintiff must timely and fully comply with all Court Orders (including this one) and all Court-imposed deadlines, regardless of whether Plaintiff has any appeals pending before the Second Circuit.

8. Strict Compliance. Going forward, the parties shall be in strict compliance with the Court's Individual Rules and with all Court Orders, including with regard to page limits and deadlines. This includes full compliance with District Judge Nathan's Memorandum Opinion and Order dated June 14, 2021 (ECF No. 267), as well as full compliance with this Order. Plaintiff has been warned on multiple occasions that sanctions may be imposed upon him for failure to abide by Court Orders (see, e.g., 2/11/21 Order, ECF No. 208, ¶ 9; 3/30/21 Order, ECF No. 238, at 2), yet (as reflected in paragraphs 1 and 3 above) Plaintiff continues to violate Court Orders. Plaintiff is forewarned that, if this conduct continues, sanctions shall be imposed.

*4 SO ORDERED.