Pisani v. Baltimore City Police et al

Filing 15

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Magistrate Judge Timothy J. Sullivan on 2/6/14. (dass, Deputy Clerk) (c/m 2/6/14-das)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
BRYAN M. PISANI,

*

Plaintiff,

*

v.

*

BALTIMORE CITY POLICE DEPT., et al.,

*

Defendant.

Civil No. WDQ-12-1654

*
*

*

*

*

*

*

MEMORANDUM OPINION
This Memorandum Opinion addresses Defendant Baltimore City Police Department’s
Motion to Compel, For Sanctions, or in the Alternative to Extend Scheduling Order (“Motion to
Compel”) (ECF No. 12).1 Plaintiff Bryan M. Pisani did not file a response to the Motion to
Compel 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, the Motion to Compel is

GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. This Memorandum Opinion and its
accompanying Order dispose of ECF No. 12.
I.

BACKGROUND
Bryan M. Pisani (“Mr. Pisani”), pro se, sued the Baltimore City Police Department (the

“BCPD”) for employment discrimination, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964 and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. (ECF No. 1). The defendants filed a
Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 5), to which Mr. Pisani did not file a response. The Motion to
Dismiss was granted in part and denied in part, with the Court dismissing all claims except for
1

On January 17, 2014, Judge Quarles referred this case to me for all discovery and
related scheduling matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Local Rules 301 and 302. (ECF No.
14).

Mr. Pisani’s Title VII retaliation claim against BCPD. (ECF Nos. 7 & 8). The Court issued a
scheduling order (ECF No. 10) on September 3, 2013, which set forth a January 16, 2014
discovery deadline, a January 23, 2014 deadline for requests for admission, and a February 18,
2014 deadline for the filing of dispositive motions.
On December 13, 2013, BCPD sent to Mr. Pisani a Notice of Deposition and Request for
Document Production and its First Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiff. (ECF Nos. 12-1 at 2, 12-3
& 12-4). The deposition of Mr. Pisani was scheduled to take place on January 13, 2014. Mr.
Pisani did not appear for the scheduled deposition and failed to produce any documents or
responses to interrogatories. (ECF Nos. 12-1 at 3 & 12-5). BCPD indicates that the mailings it
sent Mr. Pisani have not been returned as undeliverable, and that Mr. Pisani has not contacted
counsel for the BCPD regarding any of its outstanding discovery requests. (ECF No. 12-1 at 3).
Counsel for the BCPD attempted to contact Mr. Pisani by telephone on January 16, 2014, but he
failed to return counsel’s call. (ECF Nos. 12 at 4 & 12-1 at 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).” BCPD properly served

2

on Mr. Pisani twenty interrogatories (ECF No. 12-4) and sixteen requests for production of
documents (ECF No. 12-3 at 5-6). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26, 33-34.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 33 and 34 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
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).
Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(d)(1)(A)(i) permits a court to order sanctions if a party fails, after
properly being notified, to appear for a deposition. The sanctions for non-appearance at a
properly noted deposition are the same as referenced in Rule 37(b)(2)(A)(i)-(vi). In addition, a
court may require the party failing to appear for the deposition “to pay the reasonable expenses,
including attorney’s fees, caused by the failure, unless the failure was substantially justified or
other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(d)(3).
Mr. Pisani 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.’”

3

Dancy v. Univ. of N. Carolina at Charlotte, 2009 WL 2424039, at *2 (W.D.N.C. Aug. 3, 2009)
(quoting Ballard v. Carlson, 882 F.2d 93, 96 (4th Cir. 1989)). As Mr. Pisani has brought this
action against the BCPD, he has the obligation to comply with the rules that require him to
provide complete and non-evasive answers to interrogatories, complete and non-evasive
responses to requests for production of documents, and to attend his properly noted and
scheduled deposition. Mr. Pisani (1) failed to attend the deposition scheduled for January 13,
2014; (2) failed to respond to BCPD’s document production requests; and (3) failed to respond to
BCPD’s interrogatories. In addition, Mr. Pisani has not returned opposing counsel’s telephone
call concerning this discovery dispute, and has not filed a response to the Motion to Compel.
Accordingly, Mr. Pisani is hereby ORDERED to provide BCPD with complete and nonevasive responses to BCPD’s Request for Production of Documents and First Set of
Interrogatories to Plaintiff. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(4). Mr. Pisani must produce his responses to
BCPD within thirty (30) days of the date of this Memorandum Opinion and Order. Pisani is also
hereby ORDERED to contact counsel for BCPD by telephone [phone]) within ten (10)
days of the date of the Memorandum Opinion and Order to agree upon a date, time, and place for
his deposition to occur. BCPD’s request to impose sanctions is DENIED as premature. BCPD’s
request to extend the scheduling order is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. No
party shall propound additional discovery requests. Discovery will remain open until March 10,
2014 to permit Mr. Pisani to respond to comply with this Order. In any event, Mr. Pisani’s
deposition shall take place on or before March 10, 2014. The deadline for requests for admission
is extended to March 17, 2014. The deadline for dispositive pretrial motions is extended to April
7, 2014.

4

III.

CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, BCPD’s Motion To Compel (ECF No. 12) is GRANTED

IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

The Clerk of the Court shall mail a copy of this

Memorandum Opinion and Order to the Plaintiff Bryan M. Pisani, at the address set forth in the
Complaint and reflected on the docket.
A separate Order follows.

February 6, 2014
Date

/s/
Timothy J. Sullivan
United States Magistrate Judge

5