Gross v. Morgan State University et al

Filing 55

ORDER denying 46 Motion to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephanie A Gallagher on 11/8/2017. (c/m 11/9/17) (krs, 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]

November 8, 2017
Valedia Gross
4018 Carlisle Avenue
Baltimore, Maryland 21216
Catherine A. Bledsoe
Maryland Office of the Attorney General
Assistant Attorney General
200 St. Paul Place, 17th Floor
Baltimore, Maryland 21202
RE:

Valedia Gross v. Morgan State University, et. al.;
Civil No. JKB-17-448

Dear Ms. Gross and Counsel:
This matter has been referred to me for discovery disputes and related scheduling matters.
[ECF No. 49]. Plaintiff Valedia Gross, who proceeds pro se, filed this lawsuit against
Defendants Morgan State University and Joyce Brown (“Defendants”), alleging employment
discrimination based on race, age, and disability, in violation of various federal laws. [ECF No.
1]. Ms. Gross filed a Motion to Compel Discovery. [ECF No. 46]. Defendants filed an
Opposition [ECF No. 47], and Ms. Gross replied thereto. [ECF No. 52]. I find that no hearing is
necessary. See Loc. R. 105.6 (D. Md. 2016). For the following reasons, Ms. Gross’s Motion to
Compel is DENIED.
As Defendants note, Ms. Gross has not clearly outlined any specific relief she seeks. Ms.
Gross’s Motion to Compel appears to request that this Court order Defendants to produce
Michon Arrington for deposition, and that this Court impose sanctions for Defendants’ alleged
false discovery responses and false statements contained in their pleadings. [ECF No. 46].
Specifically, Ms. Gross alleges that Defendants’ initial attorney, Thomas Faulk, made “false or
fraudulent statements” in Defendants’ Motion for Leave to Late-File Answer [ECF No. 11], and
that, in subsequent pleadings and discovery responses, Defendants have continued to rely upon
those falsities and have failed to correct the record. [ECF No. 46, 4-7, 9-15]. It is unclear,
however, which statements Ms. Gross contends are false. Ms. Gross makes only general
allegations, such as, “Plaintiff’s official copy of the EEOC/FOIA file reveals Defendants’ false
or fraudulent statements . . . .” [ECF No. 46, 5]. This Court best understands Ms. Gross’s
position to be that Mr. Faulk provided false statements to obtain leave to late-file an Answer to
her Complaint by citing “to the official EEOC/FOIA” file, though Ms. Gross contends he “never
had an official copy.” [ECF No. 46, 10]; [ECF No. 46-5, 1].

Valedia Gross v. Morgan State University, et. al.
Civil No. JKB-17-448
November 8, 2017
Page 2
Additionally, Ms. Gross contends that Defendants “fabricated” the employment status of
Michon Arrington. [ECF No. 46, 6]. According to Ms. Gross, Defendants falsely stated that
Arrington was hired “to perform Plaintiff’s Contractual Obligations of Office Secretary, during
her employment . . . [and] proved Plaintiff ‘incompetent.’” [ECF No. 46, 6]. Ms. Gross argues
that Defendants’ alleged false statements “influenced” the Court’s decision to grant them leave
of court to late-file their Answer and that current Counsel, Ms. Catherine Bledsoe, used the same
false statements in various filings, including Defendants’ September 7, 2017 Answers to
Interrogatories and September 22, 2017 Responses to Requests for Admissions. [ECF No. 46, 6,
9].
Ms. Gross’s arguments are without merit. First, the fact that Ms. Bledsoe, as of October
10, 2017, had not received a complete file from the EEOC [ECF No. 46-5, 1] does not
necessarily render fraudulent Mr. Faulk’s reliance on EEOC documents in his April 27, 2017
filing. Ms. Bledsoe reiterated to Ms. Gross: (1) that Mr. Faulk, in his April 27th filing, relied
upon the affidavit of Ms. Armada Grant when stating that Defendants were delayed in receiving
EEOC documents; and (2) that the University had “not formally request[ed] the file from the
EEOC at that time.” [ECF No. 46-5, 1]. Nonetheless, it is evident that Mr. Faulk was in
possession of some documents from the EEOC, as they were included in his filing as
Attachments to the affidavit of Ms. Grant. [ECF No. 11, 12-13, 16-18]. Importantly, this Court
finds that Mr. Faulk’s references in his filing to the EEOC documents were accurate. Secondly,
contrary to Ms. Gross’s allegation, Defendants did not “fabricate[]” the employment status of
Michon Arrington to prove her “incompetent.” [ECF No. 46, 6]. In her affidavit, Defendant
Joyce Brown swore only, that once Administrative Assistant DeWayne Davis resigned, his
“responsibilities were [temporarily] performed by the remaining staff members[,] including Ms.
Gross, Michon Arrington, temp secretary, myself, and the Assistant Director, Ms. Alison Hillen,
and the Alumni Officer, Milton Hawkins.” [ECF No. 21-1, 4]; [ECF No. 21, 4]. This is the sole
context in which Defendants mention Ms. Arrington. [ECF No. 21]. Defendants’ allegations of
Ms. Gross’s poor job performance and “incompeten[ce]” are thus completely independent from
and unrelated to Ms. Arrington. See [ECF No. 21-1, 1-9]. Further, upon Ms. Brown discovering
that she was mistaken about the timing of Ms. Arrington’s employment – that she had not been
employed until after Ms. Gross had been terminated – Defendants disclosed this fact to the
Court. [ECF No. 46-7, 2 n.1]. This Court fails to find that the mistake prejudiced Ms. Gross in
any manner.
Moreover, to the extent any inaccuracies existed in Defendants’ Motion for Leave to
Late-File Answer [ECF No. 11], it is unlikely that, in their absence, Ms. Gross would have been
entitled to a Default Judgment. “[A]s a general matter, defaults [should] be avoided and []
claims and defenses [should] be disposed of on their merits.” Colleton Preparatory Acad., Inc.
v. Hoover Universal, Inc., 616 F.3d 413, 417 (4th Cir. 2010) (citing Tazco, Inc. v. Director,
Office of Workers Comp. Program, U.S. Dep't of Labor, 895 F.2d 949, 950 (4th Cir. 1990) (“The
law disfavors default judgments as a general matter.”)); Consol. Masonry & Fireproofing, 383
F.2d 249, 251 (4th Cir. 1967) (“Generally a default should be set aside where the moving party
acts with reasonable promptness and alleges a meritorious defense.”).

Valedia Gross v. Morgan State University, et. al.
Civil No. JKB-17-448
November 8, 2017
Page 3
Ms. Gross repeatedly makes reference to 18 U.S.C. § 1001. [ECF. No 46, 1, 3-4, 11, 17].
Because this is a civil lawsuit, that statute does not apply. Similarly, Ms. Gross’s several
citations to the Rules of Professional Conduct are not pertinent to this proceeding. While the
Rules of Professional Conduct govern attorney conduct, they are not a vehicle for litigants to
compel discovery.1 To compel discovery, litigants must rely upon the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.
Ultimately, the question is whether Ms. Gross is entitled to further discovery at this stage.
She did not notice any depositions, before the discovery deadline, pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 30(b). It is unclear whether Defendants could have produced Ms. Arrington for
deposition, but, in the absence of proper notice, they did not have to address her availability. Ms.
Gross’s remaining claims of deficient discovery also did not comply with Local Rule 104.8,
which, for a motion to compel, requires movants to set forth the specific request, the alleged
deficient response, and the asserted basis for why the response is insufficient. Loc. R. 104.8 (D.
Md. 2016). Importantly, “pro se litigants such as [Ms. Gross] must . . . adhere to the rudimentary
dictates of civil procedure.” Holsey v. Collins, 90 F.R.D. 122, 128 (D. Md. 1981). Finally, no
discovery order issued by Judge Bredar has been violated, and, as such, sanctions pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b) are not available.
Based on the above, Ms. Gross’s Motion to Compel [ECF No. 46] is 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

1

See DirecTV, Inc. v. Key, No. CIV. A. 3:03CV321, 2003 WL 24336356, at *2 (E.D. Va. Oct. 17, 2003), aff'd sub
nom. DIRECTV Inc. v. Key, 133 F. App'x 877 (4th Cir. 2005) (stating that “Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure sets forth the consequences for failure to comply with discovery and authorizes the imposition of
sanctions in cases in which there has been an abuse of the discovery rules,” but then referring an attorney to the
Virginia State Bar for disciplinary proceedings associated with violations of the State’s Rules of Professional
Conduct).