Lewis v. Maryland Transit Administration

Filing 47

ORDER denying 40 Motion of plaintiff to Compel; denying 39 Motion of plaintiff for Extension of Time. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephanie A Gallagher on 4/8/2015. (c/m 4/9/15 jnls, Deputy Clerk)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
CHAMBERS OF
STEPHANIE A. GALLAGHER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

101 WEST LOMBARD STREET
BALTIMORE, MARYLAND 21201
[phone]
Fax [phone]

April 8, 2015
Aortense Lewis
1313 Limit Avenue
Baltimore, Maryland 21239
Eric Scott Hartwig
Maryland Office of the Attorney General
Maryland Department of Transportation
7201 Corporate Center Drive
Hanover, Maryland 21076
RE:

Aortense Lewis v. Maryland Transit Administration;
Civil No. SAG-13-2424

Dear Ms. Lewis and Counsel:
Plaintiff Aortense Lewis, who proceeds pro se, filed this lawsuit against Defendant
Maryland Transit Administration (“MTA”), alleging employment discrimination based on race,
age, and disability, in violation of various federal laws. [ECF No. 1]. Ms. Lewis has filed a
Motion to Compel [ECF No. 40], and contingent upon that motion, a Motion for Extension of
Time to complete discovery [ECF No. 39]. This letter order addresses Ms. Lewis’s Motion to
Compel, her Motion for Extension of Time, and MTA’s consolidated response in opposition
[ECF No. 41]. Ms. Lewis has not filed a reply, and the time for doing so has passed. I find that
no hearing is necessary. See Loc. R. 105.6 (D. Md. 2014). For the following reasons, Ms.
Lewis’s Motion to Compel and Motion for Extension of Time are DENIED.
I first note that Ms. Lewis has not complied with the requirements of Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 37(a)(1) and Local Rules 104.7 and 104.8, which govern motions to compel.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1) (requiring that a motion to compel “must include a certification that
the movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with the person or party failing to
make disclosure or discovery in an effort to obtain it without court action”); Loc. R. 104.7 (D.
Md. 2014) (“The Court will not consider any discovery motion unless the moving party has filed
[the necessary] certificate.”). However, pro se litigants are accorded a degree of leniency in this
Court, and I will nevertheless address the merits of her motion. See, e.g., Colodney v. Sebelius,
Civil No. JFM-09-1026, 2009 WL 4884501, *1 n.1 (D. Md. Dec. 9, 2009) (considering the
merits of a pro se litigant’s pleading, despite its untimeliness). Moreover, although Ms. Lewis
did not file the requisite certification that the parties conferred with one another, I am satisfied,
based on Ms. Lewis’s motion and MTA’s response, that they have done so.

Aortense Lewis v. Maryland Transit Administration
Civil No. SAG-13-2424
April 8, 2015
Page 2
Ms. Lewis’s motion does not specify what she seeks the Court to compel. However,
MTA’s response explains that Ms. Lewis takes issue with MTA’s failure to produce documents
related to former MTA Director of Service Development Jessica Keller, and that she alleges that
MTA altered an email from the State Medical Director that was produced to her. Def. Resp. 2.
With respect to the documents related to Ms. Keller, MTA has filed affidavits from its Director
of Service Development and its Chief of Classification and Compensation for the Office of
Human Resources, averring that a search for documents responsive to the discovery request
regarding Ms. Keller was undertaken, and that no responsive documents were located. Def.
Resp. Ex 1, Ex. 2. These affidavits were executed under penalty of perjury, and I am satisfied
that MTA has not failed to produce responsive documents. Should MTA later discover
responsive documents, it must, of course, fulfill its continuing duty to supplement its responses
to Ms. Lewis’s document requests. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e). At this stage, however, there is
nothing for the Court to compel.
With respect to the alleged alteration of the email from the State Medical Director, MTA
has filed an affidavit from MTA’s Personnel Officer III in the Office of Operations Compliance
and Investigations, the recipient of the email at issue, asserting that the email produced to Ms.
Lewis is a “true and accurate copy of the document contained in the file,” and that she “did not
alter any information [she] received from the State Medical Director.” Def. Resp. Ex. 3. This
affidavit was also executed under penalty of perjury. I have also examined the email, and I am
satisfied that it does not appear to have been altered. Def. Resp. Ex. 4. Because MTA has
already produced to Ms. Lewis an unaltered copy of the email, there is, once again, nothing for
the Court to compel.
For the foregoing reasons, Ms. Lewis’s Motion to Compel [ECF No. 40] is DENIED, and
her Motion for Extension of Time [ECF No. 39], which was contingent thereupon, is also
DENIED.
Despite the informal nature of this letter, it should be flagged as an opinion and docketed
as an order.
Sincerely yours,
/s/
Stephanie A. Gallagher
United States Magistrate Judge