Stewart v. Santander Consumer USA, Inc. et al
Filing
89
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting 84 Motion to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Paul W. Grimm on 11/21/2012. (c/m 11/21/2012 aos, Deputy Clerk) Modified on 11/21/2012 (aos, Deputy Clerk).
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
Northern Division
*
KALLIATEN SEKHNEB
KHEPERA-BEY,
*
Plaintiff,
*
v.
*
SANTANDER CONSUMER USA
INC., et al.
Case No.: WDQ-11-1269
*
*
Defendants.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This Memorandum Opinion addresses Defendant Renaissance Recovery Solutions,
LLC’s (“Renaissance”) Motion to Compel Discovery Responses from Plaintiff KalliAten
SekhNeb Khepera-Bey,1 ECF No. 84.2 Plaintiff did not file a response and the time for doing so
has passed. See Loc. R. 105.2. I find that a hearing is not necessary. See Loc. R. 105.6. For the
reasons stated herein, Renaissance’s Motion to Compel is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to
1
When Plaintiff commenced the present action on May 6, 2011, his legal name appeared as
“Khaval Stewart.” See Compl., ECF No. 1. However, on August 3, 2011, Plaintiff filed a
Motion for Judicial Notice for Special Appearance, ECF No. 20, and requested that the Court
“address him as Khaval Stewart-Bey.” Approximately three months later, Plaintiff notified the
Court of a second name change and stated that he “is now lawfully recognized as KalliAten
SekhNeb Khepera-Bey and lawfully must be addressed as In Propria Persona Sui Juris
KalliAten SekhNeb Khepera-Bey.” Notice, ECF No. 45. For the purposes of this
Memorandum Opinion, Plaintiff shall be referred to as Plaintiff or Khepera-Bey.
2
On November 1, 2012, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Local Rules 301 and 302,
Judge Quarles referred this case to me to resolve discovery disputes and related scheduling
matters. Docket Entry.
1
provide Renaissance with fully responsive and non-evasive responses, see Fed. R. Civ. P.
37(a)(4), to Renaissance’s Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents within
forty-five (45) days of the date of this Memorandum Opinion and Order. This Memorandum
Opinion and Order disposes of ECF No. 84.
I.
BACKGROUND
On May 6, 2011, Plaintiff commenced the present action against Defendant Santander
Consumer USA, Inc. (“Santander”) and Renaissance (collectively “Defendants”), alleging that
Defendants had violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 16921692p and the Maryland Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, Md. Code Ann., Comm. Law § 14202 (West 2010); and that Defendants had committed fraud, extortion, theft, and intentional
infliction of emotional distress. See Am. Compl. 3-44, ECF No. 31. Plaintiff’s allegations stem
from a retail installment contract relating to the sale and financing of a 2003 Nissan Pathfinder
that took place in 2006. See Compl. 6-7, ECF No. 1. Throughout the course of this litigation,
Plaintiff has filed a plethora of motions, notices, and seemingly “informational” documents with
the Court. See Docket.
Notably, on August 17, 2012, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Removal, seeking removal of the
present action from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland to the “Moorish
Supreme Court of Equity and Truth[,]” the judicial body for the Moorish Science Temple.3
Notice of Removal, ECF No. 81. On September 24, 2012, Plaintiff filed additional documents
3
The Court was unable to identify any reported decisions with a discussion of the “Moorish
Supreme Court of Equity and Truth,” let alone a reported decision recognizing its existence. A
brief summary of the background and organization of the Moorish Science Temple of America,
Inc. appears in El Bey v. Moorish Sci. Temple of Am., Inc., 765 A.2d 132, 134 (Md. 2001), and
in 1998, the Seventh Circuit became one of the first federal courts to address and describe the
Moorish movement in Johnson-Bey v. Lane, 863 F.2d 1308, 1309 (7th Cir. 1998).
2
with this Court that purport to, inter alia, grant his Notice of Removal to the Moorish Supreme
Court of Equity and Truth, state that that tribunal “supersedes the United States District Court for
the District of Maryland[,]” and order the Clerk of the Court to “transmit [the] record [of the
case] to the Moorish Supreme Court of Equity and Truth within 16 days[.]” Correspondence
Regarding Points and Authorities 2-5, ECF No. 82.
On October 25, 2012, Renaissance filed the present Motion to Compel Discovery
Responses from Plaintiff, alleging that “[t]o date, Plaintiff has failed to submit any objections or
responses to” the discovery requests properly served on Plaintiff on September 6, 2012. See
Def.’s Mot. to Compel ¶ 3. Specifically, Renaissance sought, inter alia, “information regarding
Plaintiff’s communications with the Defendants, information about events relating to the
repossession of Plaintiff’s vehicle, and information and documents relating to Plaintiff’s claim
for damages.” Id. at ¶ 9. On October 12, 2012, Plaintiff filed various documents with the
Moorish Supreme Court of Equity and Truth,4 including a document entitled “Brief: Final
Argument,” (“Brief”) and an “Affidavit in Support of Brief” (collectively, the “Moorish Court
Documents”). See id. at ¶ 4 & Ex. B, ECF No. 84-2. In Plaintiff’s Brief, he states that, “[t]his
document will also serve as a complimentary response to the Trustee-Renaissance Recovery
Solutions LLC’s Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents[.]” Pl.’s Brief 1.
Renaissance disputes the sufficiency and adequacy of these documents as a response to its
discovery requests, stating, specifically, that “[e]ven a liberal interpretation of the Moorish Court
Documents does not provide information responsive to the discovery requests[,]” and that
“Plaintiff has entirely failed to respond to Renaissance’s Request for Production of Documents.”
Def’s Mot. to Compel ¶ 9.
4
Renaissance attached these documents as exhibits to its pending Motion to Compel.
3
II.
DISCUSSION
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) permits a party to
obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s
claim or defense—including the existence, description, nature, custody, condition,
and location of any documents or other tangible things and the identity and
location of persons who know of any discoverable matter. For good cause, the
court may order discovery of any matter relevant to the subject matter involved in
the action. Relevant information need not be admissible at the trial if the
discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a)(1) provides that “a party may serve on any other party no more than 25
written interrogatories,” and Fed. R. Civ. P. 34 provides that “[a] party may serve on any other
party a [document production] request within the scope of Rule 26(b)[.]” Renaissance properly
served on Plaintiff twenty Interrogatories and twenty-one Requests for Production of Documents.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26, 33-34.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 33 and 34 also require the responding party to respond to interrogatories
and requests for production of documents within thirty (30) days, and Fed. R. Civ. P.
37(a)(3)(B)(iii) provides that a party seeking discovery may move to compel a response if the
other party fails to respond to a discovery request. In the event the responding party fails to
comply with a Court Order compelling the production of discovery, the requesting party may file
a Motion for Sanctions pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b) and the Court may issue the following
sanctions:
(i) directing that the matters embraced in the order or other designated facts be
taken as established for purposes of the action, as the prevailing party claims; (ii)
prohibiting the disobedient party from supporting or opposing designated claims
or defenses, or from introducing designated matters in evidence; (iii) striking
pleadings in whole or in part; (iv) staying further proceedings until the order is
obeyed; (v) dismissing the action or proceeding in whole or in part; (vi) rendering
a default judgment against the disobedient party; or (vii) treating as contempt of
4
court the failure to obey any order except an order to submit to a physical or
mental examination.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A)(i)-(vii).
Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and, “[a]lthough pro se litigants are given liberal treatment
by courts, even pro se litigants are expected to comply with time requirements and other
procedural rules ‘without which effective judicial administration would be impossible.’” Dancy
v. Univ. of N. Carolina at Charlotte, No. 3:08-CV-166-RJC-DCK, 2009 WL 2424039, at *2
(W.D.N.C. Aug. 3, 2009) (quoting Ballard v. Carlson, 882 F.2d 93, 96 (4th Cir. 1989)). Indeed,
“[t]he right to self-representation does not ‘exempt a party from compliance with relevant rules
of procedural and substantive law.’” Id. (quoting Traquth v. Zuck, 710 F.2d 90, 95 (2nd Cir.
1983)). Here, Plaintiff has designated the Moorish Court Documents as his responses to
Renaissance’s Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents. See Pl.’s Brief 1.
However, these documents do not respond to Renaissance’s requests in either substance or form,
as required by Loc. R. 104.6, which clearly states that “[r]esponses to interrogatories and
requests for production shall set forth each interrogatory or request followed by the answer
and/or a brief statement of the grounds for objection, including a citation of the main applicable
authorities (if any).” As best this Court is able to discern, the Moorish Court Documents focus
on the existence, validity, and content of the retail installment contract at issue in this case, see
Pl.’s Brief, and do not address any of the information sought in Renaissance’s Interrogatories or
Requests for Production of Documents. See Def.’s Mot. to Compel, Ex. A, ECF No. 84-1.
Additionally, to date, Plaintiff has not provided to Renaissance any of the documents specified in
Renaissance’s Requests for Production of Documents. Id. at ¶ 9. Nor has Plaintiff filed any
response to the pending Motion to Compel.
5
III.
CONCLUSION
In light of the foregoing, Renaissance’s Motion to Compel is hereby GRANTED.
Plaintiff is ordered to serve on Renaissance complete and non-evasive responses to its
propounded Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents within forty-five (45)
days.
Dated: November 21, 2012
___________/S/____________
Paul W. Grimm
United States Magistrate Judge
mol
6
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?