Glover v. DeJoy
Glover v. DeJoy
2022 WL 22879680 (W.D. Tex. 2022)
June 9, 2022
Farrer, Richard B., United States Magistrate Judge
Summary
The court granted a motion to compel and amend the scheduling order filed by the defendant, the U.S. Postmaster General, due to the plaintiff's failure to timely and properly respond to discovery requests. The court ordered the plaintiff to provide complete responses and produce all relevant documents within 21 days, and granted the defendant a 60-day extension for any remaining deadlines. The plaintiff was also reminded of the consequences of failing to comply with the court's order.
CRAIG D. GLOVER, Plaintiff,
v.
LOUIS DEJOY, U.S. POSTMASTER GENERAL AT U.S. POSTAL SERVICE; Defendant
v.
LOUIS DEJOY, U.S. POSTMASTER GENERAL AT U.S. POSTAL SERVICE; Defendant
5-20-CV-01337-XR
United States District Court, W.D. Texas, San Antonio Division
Filed June 09, 2022
Farrer, Richard B., United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER
*1 Before the Court is Motion to Compel and Amend Scheduling order, filed by Defendant Louis DeJoy, U.S. Postmaster General. See Dkt. No. 29. The motion was referred for disposition pursuant to Rules CV-72 and 1 of Appendix C of the Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. See Dkt. No. Apr. 6, 2022, text order. For the reasons discussed below, the Motion, Dkt. No. 29 is GRANTED.
In this employment-discrimination case, DeJoy seeks to compel pro se Plaintiff Craig D. Glover to respond to requests for production and interrogatories. See Dkt. No. 29. The requests, according to the motion, were mailed on February 2, 2022. According to Glover, he responded to the discovery requests on April 14. The motion, Glover contends, is therefore moot. See Dkt. No. 30. But Glover didn't timely or properly serve his responses. Glover mailed and emailed them on April 18, 2022—over a month late and four days after discovery closed.[1] And it appears Glover mailed them to an incorrect physical address. Glover's email—sent from a UPS store's email address and not authorized by DeJoy as an acceptable method of service[2]—landed in counsel for DeJoy's spam email folder. See Dkt. No. 31. Accordingly, it wasn't until Glover filed his response to DeJoy's Motion to Compel that DeJoy received Glover's discovery responses.
Glover's untimely—and improperly served—responses are also incomplete. DeJoy asserts—and Glover doesn't dispute—that Glover failed to produce any documents in response to DeJoy's requests for production. Glover also refuses to produce any federal income tax returns, notwithstanding his request for lost wages and benefits.[3] He similarly refuses to produce any documents with a specific individual “regarding this Lawsuit or the facts underlying this Lawsuit” on relevance grounds. Glover's responses to DeJoy's handful of interrogatory requests are likewise deficient. According to Glover, his economic damages and the method of calculation are “TBD.” Glover also claims that the dates he held positions with the US Postal Service are “irrelevant.”
DeJoy's Motion to Compel is GRANTED. The requests at issue are relevant and proportional to the needs of the case. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Glover shall—within 21 days from the date of this Order—provide complete responses to DeJoy's outstanding discovery requests and produce all responsive documents. Glover is reminded that failure to timely and properly comply with his discovery obligations and this Order may result in the imposition of sanctions up to and including dismissal of the case. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(f)(1)(C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
*2 In light of the foregoing, DeJoy's request for a 60-day extension of any deadlines remaining at the time of the filing of his motion is GRANTED. The Court will issue a separate amended scheduling order reflecting this extension. If desired, DeJoy may file an amended motion for summary judgment on or before the new dispositive motion deadline.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
SIGNED this 9th day of June, 2022.
Footnotes
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(3) & Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a)(2) (providing a 30-day response deadline after service); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d) (extending deadlines by three days where a party must act within a specified time after service and service is effected by mail); Dkt. No. 23 (setting an April 14, 2022, deadline for the completion of all discovery).
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b)(2)(E) (permitting service by “other electronic means” where the recipient consents in writing).
See Butler v. Exxon Mobil Ref. & Supply Co., No. CIV.A. 07-386-C-M2, 2008 WL 4059867, at *2 (M.D. La. Aug. 28, 2008) (“It has also been recognized by numerous courts that tax return information is relevant where a plaintiff has placed the subject of his income/earning capacity at issue in litigation.”).