Gilbert v. Norton Healthcare, Inc.
Filing
82
MEMORANDUM AND OPINION by Judge Charles R. Simpson, III on 11/30/12; Nortons motion to dismiss will be granted and this action will be dismissed withprejudice. A separate order will issue in accordance with this opinion.cc:counsel, Plaintiff-pro se (DAK)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
AT LOUISVILLE
ROBERT O. GILBERT
PLAINTIFF
v.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:10-CV-380
NORTON HEALTHCARE, INC.
DEFENDANT
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This case arises out of a claim by the plaintiff, Robert O. Gilbert (“Gilbert”), that his former
employer, Norton Healthcare, Inc. (“Norton”), improperly denied his request for leave pursuant to
the Family Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”), and instead fired him. Currently pending before the court
are a motion by Norton to dismiss Gilbert’s complaint for failure to cooperate in discovery pursuant
to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 37(b) and 37(d) (DN 78) and a motion by Gilbert for leave to
file a sur-reply to Norton’s motion to dismiss (DN 81). As an initial matter, the motion to file a surreply will be granted and the arguments therein have been considered.
The court turns to the motion to dismiss for failure to cooperate in discovery. Gilbert, a pro
se plaintiff, filed his initial complaint setting forth his FMLA claim on May 27, 2010. In a Rule 16
scheduling order dated October 6, 2010, Magistrate Judge Dave Whalin ordered that discovery be
completed by March 30, 2011. On November 15, 2010, Gilbert exchanged emails with Norton’s
counsel regarding discovery. He demanded receipt of various documents prior to being deposed;
Norton’s attorneys responded that they would make the documents available to him and would like
to know what dates he would be available for a deposition. On December 1, 2010, Judge Whalin
held a telephonic conference, wherein he informed Gilbert that he would have to go to the office of
Norton’s attorneys to inspect documents and “cautioned [him] to cooperate with defense counsel in
scheduling his deposition.”
The following week, Gilbert filed with the court documents requesting that Norton’s
attorneys provide him with available dates for the deposition of four defense witnesses and a date
when he would be able to come to the office of Norton’s attorneys to inspect documents. In a letter
dated December 8, 2010, Norton’s attorneys stated that Gilbert could come into their office on
January 14, 2011 – a date Gilbert had apparently stated he would be available – to inspect the
documents. As to Gilbert’s request to depose the defense witnesses, Norton’s attorneys stated that
they would arrange for Gilbert to take the depositions but that they wished to depose Gilbert first.
In a letter dated December 27, 2010, Norton told Gilbert that it was making “another attempt to
coordinate [his] review of documents and to request deposition dates from [him].” The letter stated
that if the parties could not resolve the issues before a telephonic conference with Judge Whalin
scheduled for February 9, 2011, then Norton would request that Judge Whalin dismiss Gilbert’s
case. On January 19, 2011, Gilbert filed a proposed deposition schedule, which suggested that the
four defense witnesses be deposed February 22-25, 2011, and that Gilbert be deposed thereafter, on
February 28.
After the February 9, 2011 telephonic conference, Norton moved for an order requiring
Gilbert to sit for a deposition. On March 21, 2011, Judge Whalin ordered that Gilbert sit for a
deposition within 30 days. Judge Whalin also ordered that Norton provide to Gilbert copies of the
documents Gilbert had requested in his November 15, 2010 email, at no cost to Gilbert, within 10
days. Finally, Judge Whalin ordered that Norton make its witnesses available for deposition within
60 days of the order and extended the deadline for discovery until July 15, 2011.
-2-
Norton’s attorneys again contacted Gilbert by letter in an attempt to schedule his deposition.
However, on April 13, 2011, Gilbert filed a motion to hold Norton in contempt for failure to comply
with Judge Whalin’s order that Norton provide Gilbert copies of particulars documents he sought
at no cost to him. Judge Whalin denied Gilbert’s motion, finding that Norton had “substantially
complied with” his order by providing copies of all the documents.
Thereafter, Norton’s attorneys again sought to schedule Gilbert’s deposition. In a June 23,
2011 email, Gilbert stated that he was unavailable for a deposition until August 2011. He explained
that he was a “full-time, stay at home, single Dad” and his ability to sit for a deposition was
dependent on the dates for which the babysitter could watch his children. Norton ultimately noticed
the deposition for August 16 and moved for an extension of time until September 13, 2011 to
complete discovery, which Judge Whalin granted.
On August 16, 2011, Gilbert appeared for his deposition. However, the parties were unable
to complete the deposition after Gilbert failed to produce certain documents Norton had requested
under assertions of “impeachment privilege” and “rebuttal privilege.” Gilbert also refused to answer
certain questions and claimed he could not recall the answers to basic background information.
Norton’s attorneys sent an email to Gilbert attempting to resolve the discovery disputes, but
apparently received no response from Gilbert. On September 2, 2011, Norton filed a motion to
compel Gilbert to provide truthful and complete answers to deposition questions and to produce the
documents Gilbert claimed were privileged.
On November 16, 2011, Judge Whalin held a hearing on Norton’s motion to compel. At the
hearing, Gilbert informed Judge Whalin that he did not produce the documents Norton had requested
because he had “misplaced” the documents and was “in the process of searching for them.” As to
-3-
the questions he refused to answer, Gilbert asserted that one of the questions was inappropriate.
Gilbert claimed that he simply could not recall the answers to other questions, including what the
medical condition for which he sought leave under the FMLA was and what his social security
number is. When Judge Whalin reminded Gilbert that he had an obligation to truthfully answer the
questions he was asked under oath, Gilbert insisted that he was being truthful about not recalling
those matters. Judge Whalin asked Gilbert whether Norton had requested a release to obtain
Gilbert’s medical records, and Gilbert stated that he “would never give them releases,” but would
“go to the medical center [him]self and refresh [his] recollection and then will pass it on to them.”
Judge Whalin responded that Norton had a right to discover relevant evidence, including Gilbert’s
medical records, and could get a subpoena or an order from the court to get the medical records.
Judge Whalin continued:
I mean, what you risk is – first of all, I guess they could – there are certain sanctions
for not cooperating with discovery, for not legitimately answering questions, okay?
And the rule itself provides that a partial or evasive answer is treated as no answer.
They could make a motion for the Court to take certain steps as sanctions, up to and
including the dismissal of your lawsuit. Now, again, that’s a decision that Judge
Simpson would likely make, and they would have to make, I would think, a pretty
strong showing for your lawsuit to be thrown out.
But understand, Mr. Gilbert, this case has been going on for a while, and I think I’ve
been pretty lenient with you trying to help you get things scheduled and all of that,
and I know that Norton’s has complained more than once about trying to get your
deposition scheduled and things of that nature. I can’t practice this case for you. I can
suggest to you that you need to be conscious of the fact that there are consequences
for you not cooperating in the discovery, okay?
Judge Whalin then directed that Gilbert submit to deposition again and answer the questions he
previously had not answered. Judge Whalin stated that he would put it in an order, and direct that
the deposition take place within 20 days after the entry of the order “because it’s been delayed long
enough.”
-4-
On November 22, 2011, Judge Whalin signed the order granting Norton’s motion to compel.
The order required Gilbert to sit for deposition within 20 days of the date of entry of the order.1 The
order stated that Gilbert was to answer questions “in good faith and to the best of his ability.” It
continued, “The Court has warned Gilbert during the hearing that a willful refusal to cooperate with
discovery may result in the District Court imposing significant sanctions against him to include the
possible dismissal of his lawsuit.” However, Judge Whalin stated that he was making “no factual
findings on the credibility of Gilbert’s testimony about his memory problems,” although Judge
Whalin noted that Norton was entitled to discovery on the issue of Gilbert’s memory loss. Finally,
the order found that there was no question that information concerning Gilbert’s medical condition
for which he sought FMLA leave was discoverable.
Norton’s attorneys sent Gilbert a letter to place Gilbert on notice that it intended to obtain
his medical and billing records via subpoena duces tecum. On December 1, 2011, Gilbert filed an
objection to Norton’s subpoena, claiming that his medical and billing records were protected as trial
preparation materials. On January 17, 2012, Judge Whalin entered an order overruling Gilbert’s
objections. Judge Whalin again noted that Gilbert’s medical and billing records were relevant, as
his FMLA claim put his medical condition in issue. The order also stated, “[T]he Court once again,
for the second time in two months, cautions Gilbert that his continuing refusal to cooperate with
discovery may possibly result in sanctions being imposed upon him by the District Court, up to and
including the sanction of dismissal of his claims.”
1
At the time Judge Whalin entered the order granting Norton’s motion to compel, two
motions filed by Gilbert to amend his complaint to add new claims remained pending. Accordingly,
Judge Whalin ultimately extended the 20-day period he imposed for the parties to complete Gilbert’s
deposition.
-5-
In a December 20, 2011 order, Judge Whalin ruled on a motion filed by Gilbert for leave to
amend his complaint. In that order, he stated, “Norton shall have 30 days from the [date of entry of
the order] in which to arrange the deposition of Gilbert.” The parties resumed discussion of dates
when Gilbert would be available for a deposition. In a January 4, 2012 email, Gilbert informed
Norton’s attorneys that he would be unavailable to be deposed on January 19, 2012, but would be
“available for deposition (only) on Wednesday January 18, 2012.” Norton’s attorneys responded that
they would be unavailable on January 18, and asked for other dates that Gilbert would be available
during the weeks beginning January 16, 23, and 30. Gilbert responded that he had made several
attempts to secure childcare for the week of January 16, but was unsuccessful. He also stated that
because the weeks of January 23 and 30 were outside the 30 days in which to schedule his
deposition pursuant to Judge Whalin’s order, he would not be available those weeks. Norton’s
attorneys requested that Gilbert reconsider his availability during the weeks of January 23 and 30;
otherwise, Norton would file a motion with the court. Eventually, Gilbert responded that he would
not be available for deposition during the weeks of January 23 or 30, or anytime in February. Gilbert
explained that he would be leaving Louisville on January 20 for a “long planned (extended) vacation
and [would] return to Louisville, Ky. on February 31, 2012 [sic].” Thus, Gilbert proposed that he
sit for a deposition on March 1 or 2. Norton’s attorneys sent an email to Gilbert confirming that his
deposition would be March 1, 2012 at 10:00 a.m and filed a notice to take Gilbert’s deposition with
the court.
On January 27, 2012, Norton filed a motion to extend the deadline to file dispositive
motions. Noting that the deadline had been set for March 5, but Gilbert’s deposition would not take
place until March 1, Norton requested a deadline for dispositive motions of April 9. In an order
-6-
dated February 22, 2012, Judge Whalin granted Norton’s motion. In doing so, Judge Whalin stated
that he was “compelled to add the following observation based on the content of the recent e-mail
exchanged between Gilbert and Norton.” Judge Whalin continued:
Review of the e-mails suggests that a lack of cooperation by Mr. Gilbert in arranging
his deposition continues to exists. . . . The Court repeatedly in its orders has
cautioned Gilbert that he may be subject to sanction, or even the possible dismissal
of his suit, if he does not cooperate with discovery. This order is the third such time
the Court has cautioned Mr. Gilbert. Should Gilbert fail to appear for deposition now
set for March 1, 2012, the Court will entertain a motion for appropriate sanctions.
On March 1, 2012, Gilbert failed to appear for his deposition. Norton’s attorneys called
Gilbert twice and left messages for him and also emailed him. After waiting one hour, Norton’s
attorneys adjourned the deposition. That afternoon, Norton filed a motion to hold all deadlines in
the case in abeyance while Norton filed a motion for sanctions pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 37. Judge Whalin granted the motion on March 7, 2012.
In a March 22, 2012 status conference in a case between Gilbert and Norton in Jefferson
County, Kentucky, Circuit Court, Case Number 09-CI-12315, Gilbert told Norton’s attorneys that
he did not attend his deposition because he was in the emergency room. He provided two documents
from Jewish Hospital & St. Mary’s HealthCare. One document stated that he was seen in the
emergency department on March 1, but did not provide the time he appeared there; the other
document was a drug prescription, but the name of the prescribed medication had been blacked out.
Additionally, during the status conference Gilbert agreed to be deposed in April. Norton filed a
notice to take Gilbert’s deposition on April 12, 2012.
On March 28, 2012, Norton’s attorneys sent Gilbert a letter advising him of Norton’s intent
to subpoena medical and billing records from Jewish Hospital & St. Mary’s HealthCare. The letter
also advised Gilbert that he had until April 12, 2012 to object to the subpoena. On April 11, 2012,
-7-
Gilbert sent an email to Norton objecting to the subpoena on the ground that his emergency room
visit on March 1 bore no relation to his claims against Norton.
The next day, April 12, 2012, Gilbert sat for his deposition. During the deposition, he was
asked what the medical emergency was that prevented him from sitting for a deposition on March
1. He responded, “My emergency, I – I can’t recall it right now. I would have to look at my medical
billings.” Upon further questioning, he stated, “All I know is that when – I just woke up laying in
the bed, so I don’t know what they did to me, so I would have to look at the records myself.” When
asked whether he was in an emergency room at the Jewish Hospital downtown, he responded, “I
don’t remember. All I know was that it was at a Jewish Hospital, so – so once – once again, you
know, I will have to look in the records to see which one of their facilities that I was at because I
must have been completely out of it.” He also stated that he did not recall what time he woke up at
the hospital, whether he spent the night in the hospital, how he got home from the hospital, or even
if he talked to a doctor at the hospital. Nevertheless, Gilbert reaffirmed his opposition to Norton
obtaining his medical records.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b)(2) provides for sanctions, including dismissal of an
action, where a party has failed “to obey an order to provide or permit discovery.” Additionally,
Rule 37(d) allows for similar sanctions if a party “fails, after being served with proper notice, to
appear for [a] deposition.” The dismissal of an action is an appropriate sanction for a party’s
“conscious and intentional” failures to cooperate with the court’s discovery orders. Bass v. Jostens,
Inc., 71 F.3d 237, 241 (6th Cir. 1995). In determining whether dismissal is a proper sanction for
violating discovery orders, courts should consider the following four factors: (1) whether the party’s
failure to cooperate was due to willfulness, bad faith, or fault; (2) whether the adversary was
-8-
prejudiced by the failure to cooperate; (3) whether the party was warned that a failure to cooperate
could lead to dismissal; and (4) the sufficiency of less drastic sanctions. See id. The court finds that
all the factors indicate that dismissal is proper here.
First, the court finds that Gilbert willfully failed to cooperate with a discovery order in this
case when he failed to appear at his deposition on March 1, 2012. Judge Whalin had explicitly stated
in an order that Gilbert was required to sit for that deposition or face a motion for sanctions.
Although Gilbert suggests that he was at the emergency room at the time the deposition was
scheduled to take place, he provides no documentation backing up that assertion. The sole
documentation he provided to Norton to show that he visited a hospital on March 1 does not state
what time Gilbert was there or why he was there. In testimony Gilbert gave less than two months
after he failed to appear for the deposition, Gilbert claimed to have no memory concerning any part
of his trip to the emergency room, including why he was there, how long he was there, where the
hospital was located, or if he talked to a doctor. However, Gilbert also objected to any attempt by
Norton to obtain medical records that could support his account. Because Gilbert does not deign to
provide Norton or the court with any information about the supposed hospital trip, the court finds
that Gilbert does not have a legitimate excuse for missing the deposition that had been scheduled
far in advance and that Gilbert had been warned not to miss by Judge Whalin.
Moreover, the failure to attend the March 1 deposition was hardly the first time Gilbert had
failed to obey a discovery order or had acted to obstruct Norton’s attempts at discovery in this case.
In particular, this court notes that Gilbert was made aware that Norton sought to depose him by
November 2010. When Norton filed the instant motion in March 2012, nearly one and one-half years
later, it still had not completed Gilbert’s deposition. During that time period, Gilbert repeatedly
-9-
forced Norton to obtain court intervention in disputes concerning discovery to which Norton was
clearly entitled, including for such items as scheduling Gilbert’s deposition and obtaining relevant
medical documentation. The one and one-half year pattern of obstructionist tactics only furthers this
court’s conclusion that Gilbert’s failure to comply with discovery orders was willful.
As to factor two in the analysis – prejudice – the court has little trouble concluding that the
substantial delays caused by Gilbert’s failure to cooperate and Norton’s having expended time and
money to garner the discovery to which they are entitled constitute prejudice to Norton. The
presence of factor three – a warning about the possibility of dismissal – is also beyond dispute. First,
at the hearing on November 16, 2011, Judge Whalin clearly informed Gilbert that there were
sanctions for not cooperating with discovery, including possible dismissal of the action. Then, in
Judge Whalin’s January 17, 2012 order overruling Gilbert’s objections to Norton’s notice of intent
to subpoena Gilbert’s medical records, Judge Whalin again cautioned Gilbert that his refusal to
cooperate with discovery could result in sanctions, including dismissal. Finally, in Judge Whalin’s
February 22, 2012 order granting Norton’s motion to extend dispositive deadlines until after
Gilbert’s March 1, 2012 deposition, Judge Whalin once again warned Gilbert about the possibility
of dismissal, and stated that if Gilbert failed to appear on March 1, the court would entertain a
motion for sanctions. Thus, Gilbert was warned on three separate occasions that a failure to
cooperate with discovery could lead to dismissal.
Lastly, the court finds that the fourth factor is satisfied, in that dismissal of the action, rather
than a lesser sanction, is appropriate. As noted above, Judge Whalin repeatedly warned Gilbert to
cooperate with discovery, including informing Gilbert that he would entertain a motion for sanctions
if Gilbert failed to appear on March 1. Despite those repeated warnings, Gilbert nonetheless willfully
- 10 -
failed to appear for that deposition. And that was simply the last of many obstructionist actions, such
as objecting to a subpoena of his medical records even after Judge Whalin had made clear that
Norton was entitled to that information. In light of Gilbert’s pattern of obstructionist behavior and
continuance of such behavior even after being warned of the consequences, the court finds that no
lesser sanction than dismissal would be effective in deterring similar conduct by either Gilbert or
other litigants.
In sum, Norton’s motion to dismiss will be granted and this action will be dismissed with
prejudice. A separate order will issue in accordance with this opinion.
November 30, 2012
cc:
Plaintiff, pro se
Counsel of Record
- 11 -
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?