Brown v. Express Scripts

Filing 123

OPINION MEMORANDUM AND ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants Motion to Dismiss, [Doc. No. 117], is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants Supplemental Motion for Sanctions, [Doc. No. 85] is DENIED as moot. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plai ntiffs Motion to Amend Complaint, [Doc. No. 98] is DENIED as moot. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs Pro Se Motion for Defendant and Court to Issue a "Search Warrant", [Doc. No. 102] is DENIED as moot. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants Motion to Continue Trial Setting, [Doc. No. 115] is DENIED as moot. 102 117 115 98 85 Signed by District Judge Henry Edward Autrey on 4/25/19. (CLA)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
OBED BROWN,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
EXPRESS SCRIPTS,
Defendant.

Case No. 4:17CV866 HEA

OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Defendant Express Scripts Services
Company's (“Express Scripts” or “Defendant”) Motion to Dismiss [Doc. No. 117].
Defendant moves the Court to dismiss Plaintiff Obed Brown’s (“Brown” or
“Plaintiff”) case with prejudice based on her failure to comply with Court Orders
and her discovery obligations. Plaintiff, acting pro se, opposes Defendant's motion.
For the following reasons, the Court will grant Defendant's motion and dismiss
Plaintiff's case with prejudice.
Facts and Background
Plaintiff initially filed her Complaint against Express Scripts on March 9,
2017. Plaintiff was formerly employed by Express Scripts from October 2013 until
December 2015. Plaintiff’s pro se Complaint alleged that Defendant discriminated
against her based on her sex and in retaliation. Plaintiff also alleged various other

claims, including, criminal claims, discrimination based on sexual orientation or
gender identity, race, black listing, and gang stalking. Plaintiff alleged damages of
wrongful termination, poverty, housing loss, hospitalization due to “severe mental
torture” by Express Scripts, ruined character, hindrance of medical treatment for
gender identity disorder, black listing, and gang stalking. Following a partial
motion to dismiss by Defendant, most of Plaintiff’s claims were dismissed, leaving
only the sex discrimination/harassment and retaliation claims.
On May 1, 2018, Defendant served Plaintiff with written discovery
including interrogatories, requests for production including medical and
employment records authorizations, and requests for admission. Plaintiff served
Defendant with her answers to interrogatories and responses to requests for
admission on May 30, and her responses to request for production on June 3. For
most of her responses and answers, Plaintiff declined to respond or asserted
privileges and objections that were irrelevant or unsupported. Defendant, asserting
that Plaintiff’s responses were “severely deficient,” filed a Motion to Compel on
June 20, 2018. On July 12, the Court granted Defendant’s Motion to Compel
Responses to Its Interrogatories and Requests for Production and Motion to Deem
Its Requests for Admission Admitted.
Defendant filed a Motion for Sanctions on August 2 based on Plaintiff’s
failure to comply with the Court’s July 12 Order. On August 15, the Court ordered
2

Plaintiff to provide complete responses to Defendant’s first set of interrogatories
and requests for production within 14 days, and warned Plaintiff that failure to
comply would result in Plaintiff’s Complaint being stricken and dismissed.
Plaintiff filed new responses to interrogatories on August 24, 2018. Again,
Plaintiff refused to sufficiently respond to interrogatories, and refused to provide
signed medical and employment record authorizations. Defendant filed a
Memorandum to the Court on August 30 requesting that the Court strike Plaintiff’s
Complaint and dismiss this action. On September 7, Defendant filed a
Supplemental Motion for Sanctions for Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the
Court’s Order.
Plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel production of documents from Defendant
on August 24. The Court denied that Motion, noting Plaintiff’s failure to comply
with local rule 37-3.04, which requires a party to attempt in good faith to resolve
discovery disputes with opposing counsel before filing a motion to compel.
Discovery was required to be completed 60 days after Plaintiff provided the
executed medical and employment authorizations, and the dispositive motion filing
was to be completed within 84 days after Plaintiff provided the authorizations.
On January 22, 2019, Plaintiff filed purported executed authorizations with
the Court. However, Plaintiff wrote on each signed authorization that she was
signing “against [her] free will and liberty,” rendering the authorization forms
3

ineffective. Defendant attempted to use the forms as provided to obtain medical
records, but was denied. Defendant filed the instant Motion to Dismiss on February
26, 2019. Plaintiff filed a response, Defendant filed a reply, and Plaintiff filed a
surreply.
Discussion
Defendant requests that the Court dismiss Plaintiff's claims with prejudice
pursuant to Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 37 authorizes the
district courts to impose sanctions upon parties who fail to comply with discovery
orders, but dismissal may be considered as a sanction only if there is (1) an order
compelling discovery, (2) a willful violation of that order, and (3) prejudice to the
other party. Schoffstall v. Henderson, 223 F.3d 818, 823 (8th Cir.2000). A
dismissal with prejudice is “an extreme sanction,” and “should be used only in
cases of willful disobedience of a court order or where a litigant exhibits a pattern
of intentional delay.” Hunt v. City of Minneapolis, 203 F.3d 524, 527 (8th
Cir.1999). “This does not mean that the district court must find that the appellant
acted in bad faith, but requires ‘only that [she] acted intentionally as opposed to
accidentally or involuntarily.’” Hunt, 203 F.3d at 527 (citing Rodgers v. University
of Mo., 135 F.3d 1216, 1219 (8th Cir.1998)).
Pro se litigants are not excused from complying with court orders or
substantive or procedural law. Farnsworth v. City of Kansas City, 863 F.2d 33, 34
4

(8th Cir.1988) (per curiam). Where a court gives meaningful notice of what is
expected of the pro se litigants, initially imposes less stringent sanctions when they
fail to cooperate, and warns them that their failure to comply with subsequent court
orders would result in “dismissal of their action,” dismissal is proper.
Before imposing the sanction of dismissal, “fairness requires a court to
consider whether a lesser sanction is available or appropriate.” Keefer v. Provident
Life and Acc. Ins. Co., 238 F.3d 937, 941 (8th Cir.2000). A district court, however,
need not impose the least onerous sanction available, but the most appropriate
under the circumstances. Id. Also, when a litigant's conduct “abuses the judicial
process, the remedy of dismissal is within the inherent powers of the court.” Id.
In this case, the Court finds Plaintiff has willfully disregarded the Court's
orders. Plaintiff was ordered to respond to Defendant's interrogatories and requests
for production on July 12, 2018 and August 15, 2018. In the written order dated
August 15, Plaintiff was warned that her failure to comply would result in
dismissal.
The Court also finds that Defendant has been prejudiced by Plaintiff's
actions. Almost twelve months have passed since Defendant first served discovery
on Plaintiff. Defendant has filed a motion to compel and motions for sanctions.
The Court granted Defendant’s motion to compel, and warned Plaintiff to fully
respond to discovery requests in response to Defendant’s first motion for sanctions.
5

To date, Plaintiff has not adequately responded to Defendant’s interrogatories or
requests for production. While Plaintiff has proceeded with depositions of
Defendant’s employees, Defendants are unable to meaningfully depose Plaintiff
due her unwillingness to comply with discovery and the Court’s orders.
Plaintiff continually refuses to properly execute the medical authorizations
or answer interrogatories. Plaintiff willfully ignores the Court’s orders to fully
respond to interrogatories, choosing instead to answer only a subset of
interrogatories, and even then, evading answers through unsupported objections
and statements of privilege. Although Plaintiff maintains her position to the
contrary, discovery of her medical records is proper. Plaintiff has placed her
physical and mental conditions squarely at issue by alleging injuries and damages
such as hospitalization due to severe mental torture and hindrance of medical
treatment for gender identity disorder. Her associated medical records are relevant
and therefore discoverable. See Schoffstall, 223 F.3d at 823. Plaintiff repeatedly,
willfully, and intentionally refuses to comply with the Court’s order to execute the
authorizations and respond to interrogatories.
As a result of Plaintiff's willful disregard of her discovery obligations and
Court orders, Defendant's ability to defend this suit has been seriously hampered.
Time and money have been wasted, and Defendant still does not have all the
information it needs to file a motion for summary judgment or go to trial.
6

The Court finds that during the course of this litigation Plaintiff has been
deliberately evasive. She has willfully and unreasonably delayed these
proceedings. The Court has considered but finds no other sanction short of
dismissal that is appropriate at this time. The Court acknowledges Plaintiff has
proceeded pro se during the majority of this litigation, and recognizes that justice
favors hearing cases on the merits, but the Court believes there is no other sanction
that would deter plaintiff from continuing to abuse the discovery process. Plaintiff
has been plainly warned that she must comply with Court orders and her discovery
obligations, to no avail. Plaintiff remains steadfast in her defiance to the rules and
orders of this Court. The Court, therefore, finds that the only appropriate sanction
at this junction is dismissal with prejudice.
Conclusion
Plaintiff’s Complaint will be dismissed with prejudice as a result of
Plaintiff’s ongoing noncompliance with this Court’s orders. Defendant’s Motion to
Dismiss will be granted, Plaintiff’s Complaint will be dismissed with prejudice,
and all remaining motions which are pending before the Court will be denied as
moot.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, [Doc.
No. 117], is GRANTED.
7

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Supplemental Motion for
Sanctions, [Doc. No. 85] is DENIED as moot.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Complaint,
[Doc. No. 98] is DENIED as moot.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Pro Se Motion for Defendant
and Court to Issue a "Search Warrant", [Doc. No. 102] is DENIED as moot.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Continue Trial
Setting, [Doc. No. 115] is DENIED as moot.
Dated this25th day of April, 2019.

________________________________
HENRY EDWARD AUTREY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

8