White v. United Parcel Service
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants motion to compel is GRANTED. (Doc. No. 47.) IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall respond on or before May17, 2013, to Defendants First Set of Interrogatories and First Request for Produc tion of Documents. Plaintiff is cautioned that failure to comply with this Order or to otherwise participate in the discovery process may result in sanctions, including the dismissal of her claims. ( Response to Court due by 5/17/2013.) Signed by District Judge Audrey G. Fleissig on 5/6/13. (JWJ)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
DONNA E. WHITE,
UNITED PARCEL SERVICE,
Case No. 4:11CV00707 AGF
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s motion to compel responses to its
discovery requests. Defendant asserts and Plaintiff does not deny that Plaintiff has failed
to provide responses to all discovery requests propounded in this action.
On January 9, 2013, Defendant served on Plaintiff a First Set of Interrogatories
and First Request for Production of Documents. In those discovery requests Defendant
asked Plaintiff specific questions regarding her claims. Shortly after the written
discovery requests were served, counsel for Defendant spoke with Plaintiff by telephone
to explain what the requests were and when they were due. Plaintiff’s responses to the
discovery requests were due on February 11, 2013, but Plaintiff failed to respond or
object to the discovery requests by February 11, 2013. On March 27 and again on April
8, 2013, Defendant’s counsel wrote Plaintiff and requested full and complete responses to
the discovery requests. Defendant asserts that as of the date of the filing of this motion it
had received no response to its correspondence or to the discovery requests. In addition,
Plaintiff has not responded to this motion to compel and the time to do so has expired.
Although Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, she is required to follow all rules of
procedure and requirements of the law, including the obligation to cooperate in the
discovery process. United States v. Green, 691 F.3d 960, 965-66 (8th Cir. 2012) (holding
that “the right of self-representation is not ‘a license not to comply with relevant rules of
procedural and substantive law’”) (quoting Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 834 n. 46
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s motion to compel is GRANTED.
(Doc. No. 47.)
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall respond on or before May17, 2013,
to Defendant’s First Set of Interrogatories and First Request for Production of
Documents. Plaintiff is cautioned that failure to comply with this Order or to otherwise
participate in the discovery process may result in sanctions, including the dismissal of her
AUDREY G. FLEISSIG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 6th day of May, 2013.
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?