Shumpert et al v. City of Tupelo, Mississippi et al
ORDER denying 127 Motion to Appeal Magistrate Judge Decision; denying 128 Motion to Stay; denying 129 Motion to Appeal Magistrate Judge Decision ; denying 159 Motion to Appeal Magistrate Judge Decision. Signed by District Judge Sharion Aycock on 11/16/2017. (dbm)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
PEGGY SHUMPERT, individually and as the
Administrator of the Estate of Antwun Shumpert, Sr.,
THE ESTATE OF ANTWUN SHUMPERT, SR., and
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:16-CV-120-SA-DAS
CITY OF TUPELO, MISSISSIPPI,
MAYOR JASON SHELTON,
CHIEF BART AGUIRRE, and
OFFICER TYLER COOK
Now before the Court are the Plaintiffs’ objections to various Magistrate Judge’s orders in
this case regarding certain discovery issues. The Magistrate Judge imposed sanctions against
Plaintiffs’ counsel individually. See Orders [85, 118, 126, 155]. The Magistrate Judge also denied
Plaintiffs counsel’s cross-motion for sanctions against the Defendants. See Order . First, the
Plaintiffs object to and request a stay of the Magistrate Judge’s imposition of sanctions. See
Objections [127, 129]; Motion to Stay . Second, the Plaintiffs request that the Court reverse
the Magistrate Judge’s denial of sanctions against the Defendants. See Objections . The
parties fully briefed these objections, and they are now ripe for review.
A magistrate judge may rule directly on a non-dispositive pretrial motion. 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(l)(A). When objections are raised to such a ruling, a district court must consider them and
“modify or set aside any part of the order that is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” FED. R. CIV.
P. 72(a); Castillo v. Frank, 70 F.3d 382, 385 (5th Cir. 1995). Under this deferential standard, a
magistrate judge’s decision must be affirmed unless “on the entire evidence [the court] is left with
a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” United States v. United States
Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395, 68 S. Ct. 525, 92 L. Ed. 746 (1948). The imposition of discovery
sanctions is non-dispositive and thus subject to the “clearly erroneous or contrary to law” standard
of review set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and Rule 72(a). See Merritt v. International Bhd.
of Boilermakers, 649 F.2d 1013, 1018 (5th Cir. 1981).
The Magistrate Judge found that Plaintiffs’ counsel committed various discovery violations
including: failing to respond adequately to discovery requests, serving responses late, failing to
respond to interrogatories, and failing to respond to Defense Counsel’s inquiries. The Magistrate
Judge also found that these violations necessitated the filing of two motions to compel by the
Defendants. The Magistrate Judge imposed sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
37(a)(5)(A) to compensate the Defendants for the preparation of the motions to compel.
In his objections to the Magistrate Judge’s orders, Plaintiffs’ counsel does not cite any error
in the Magistrate Judge’s decision, but instead argues that the sanctions are unwarranted because
the Defendants also committed discovery violations by failing to comply with the Case
Management Order . Specifically Plaintiffs’ counsel argues that the Case Management Order
requires the parties to request a telephonic conference with the Magistrate Judge in an effort to
resolve discovery disputes before filing motions to compel, and the Defendants failed to do so with
regard to the relevant disputes.
As the Magistrate Judge correctly found, any failure by the Defendants to comply with the
Case Management Order is not a discovery violation actionable under Rule 37 because the case
management order is not “an order to provide or permit discovery.” See FED. R. CIV. P. 37(b)(2)(A).
In turn, the Magistrate Judge declined to impose sanctions for the Defendants’ failure under the
applicable Rule 16. Although the Plaintiffs counsel’s objection makes clear that he disagrees with
the Magistrate Judge’s decision, he cites no authority, and raises no clear error in the Magistrate
Judge’s decision. Nor does Plaintiffs’ counsel raise any clear error in the Magistrate Judge’s
decision that the amount of the sanctions imposed is reasonable. Importantly, Plaintiffs’ counsel
does not bring forth any evidence whatsoever in opposition to the Magistrate Judge’s decision that
the discovery violations were directly attributable to Plaintiffs counsel’s gross carelessness and
that his conduct was sufficiently egregious to warrant sanctions.
The record in this case demonstrates a clear pattern of willful, if not intentional, discovery
violations by Plaintiffs’ counsel. Such behavior is clearly sanctionable under the applicable rules.
Finding no error in the Magistrate Judge’s decision to impose sanctions in this case, the Court
affirms the Magistrate Judge’s decisions, and overrules Plaintiffs counsel’s objections. Because
the Magistrate Judge delayed the disbursal of the sanctions until final judgment is entered in this
case, there is no reason to impose a stay, and Plaintiffs counsel’s request for a stay is also denied.
See Order .
Finally, the Court affirms the Magistrate Judge’s decision to not impose sanctions against
the Defendants under Rule 16. Although the Defendants failed to strictly comply with the Case
Management Order, they did make several attempts to confer with Plaintiffs’ counsel. As the
Magistrate Judge correctly found, the Defendants’ noncompliance with the Case Management
Order was substantially justified, and in any event, Plaintiffs’ counsel failed to bring forth any clear
error committed by the Magistrate Judge relevant to this decision.
For all of the reasons explained above, the Magistrate Judge’s Orders: [85, 118, 126, 155]
are AFFIRMED. Plaintiffs’ Motions and Objections [127, 129, 159] are OVERRULED and
DENIED. Finally, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Stay  is DENIED.
SO ORDERED, this the 16th day of November, 2017.
/s/ Sharion Aycock
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?