Baez Romero v. DHL Express Inc et al
Filing
99
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: re: 95 MOTION to Compel Sedgwick CMS to To Produce Documents filed by Mauricio Baez Romero. Accordingly, there is no indication that Ayala's testimony would be relevant to Baez Romero's claims against DHL. Th erefore, Baez Romero's request to depose Ayala is DENIED. Additionally, there is no indication in the record that Santiago's testimony would be relevant to Baez Romero's claims. Therefore, Baez Romero's request to depose Santiago is DENIED. There is no indication in the record that Nuttall had any personal knowledge of the underlying facts that led to the Step Two hearing. Therefore, Baez Romero's request to depose Nuttall is DENIED. There is no indication in the record that Jack Ruggiero is in possession of information relevant to any party's claim or defense that Ignacio Garcia would not also be able to provide. Therefore, Baez Romero's request to depose Ruggiero is DENIED. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Ronald L. Ellis on 12/12/2013) (ama)
, USDCSDt'N
DOCUMENT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERl'\f DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
noc Ii: _ _ _ _ _ __
DATE FILED: \ --z.. - \~ - \~
MAURICIO BAEZ ROMERO,
Plaintiff,
MEMORANDUM
OPINION AND ORDER
- against12 Civ. 1942 (LAK) (RLE)
DHL EXPRESS, INC., et aI.,
Defendants.
RONALD L. ELLIS, United States Magistrate Judge:
Before the Court is Plaintiff Baez Romero's application to take additional depositions.
Defendants DHL Express ("DHL") and Local 295 LB.T. ("Local 295") object to Baez Romero's
application. For the reasons that follow, Baez Romero's request is DENIED.
I. BACKGROUND
On April 30, 2012, Baez Romero filed the Complaint in this case. On September 18,
2012, Baez Romero amended his Complaint. (Docket No. 64.) On April 2, 2013, District Judge
Kaplan referred the case to the undersigned for general pretrial matters. On September 19,2013,
John Lambros, then counsel for Baez Romero, requested permission to withdraw as counsel.
Baez Romero proceeded to represent himself pro se. At a September 27, 2013 telephone
conference, the Court ordered the Parties to reschedule the depositions previously scheduled
when Baez Romero had been represented by counsel and ordered Baez Romero to (1) attend the
depositions scheduled for October 4,2013; (2) contact the Pro Se Office to obtain the necessary
information to take and schedule depositions; and (3) make a written application to the Court as
to additional depositions he wished to take. (Docket No. 90.) On September 30,2013, Baez
Romero wrote a letter to the Court requesting permission to depose (1) Frank Ayala; (2) Jack
Ruggiero; (3) Bill Santiago; and (4) John Nuttall. (Docket No. 87.) DHL objected to the
depositions of Ayala, Santiago, and NuttalL (Docket No. 88.) Local 295 objected to Ruggiero's
deposition. (Docket No. 89.)
Baez Romero also indicated in his September 30,2013 letter that he believed the
Defendants had already agreed to depositions of three other individuals-John Montecalvo, Jide
Dawodu, and Ignacio Garcia--but in case Defendants ever challenge those depositions, he
requested the Court's leave to take those depositions as well. (Docket No. 87.) Defendants have
not indicated any objections to Montecalvo, Dawodu, or Garcia, and this Memorandum Opinion
addresses the depositions of Ayala, Ruggiero, Santiago, and Nuttall.
II. DISCUSSION
Baez Romero is entitled to discovery "regarding any non-privileged matter that is
relevant to any party's claim or defense." Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Baez Romero's claims
against DHL are disability discrimination, lack of accomodation, national origin discrimination,
hostile work environment, and wrongful termination. (Docket No. 64.) Baez Romero's claims
against Local 295 are breach of fair representation. (ld.)
Baez Romero asserts that Ayala "was the senior DHL human resources agent who
handled [his] complaints of worked [sic] place discrimination." (Docket No. 87.) He states that
he "contacted [Ayala] and reported my discriminatory complaints that I labeled against
management," and that he is claiming "that Mr. Ayala failed to follow through with his
responsibilities such as investigating complaints." (ld.) Although the record indicates, and
Defendants do not dispute, that grievances were filed by Baez Romero and handled by Ayala,
there is no indication in the record that the grievances were related to discrimination on the basis
of any category mentioned in the Complaint, or any other protected category. Accordingly, there
2
is no indication that Ayala's testimony would be relevant to Baez Romero's claims against DHL.
Therefore, Baez Romero's request to depose Ayala is DENIED.
Baez Romero requests leave to depose Bill Santiago ("Santiago") because "[h]e is an ex
coworker" who is "currently employed by DHL" and who was working a "similar schedule" to
him and "performing the same tasks" during the period that he complained of discrimination.
(Id.) Simply being a coworker, working a similar schedule, and performing the same tasks does
not indicate that Santiago is in possession of any information relating to any party's claim or
defense. Additionally, there is no indication in the record that Santiago's testimony would be
relevant to Baez Romero's claims. Therefore, Baez Romero's request to depose Santiago is
DENIED.
Baez Romero requests leave to depose John Nuttall ("Nuttall") because "[h]e was the
DHL Labor relations agent [who] upheld John Montecalvo's decision to terminate my
employment." (Id.) Baez Romero wrote in his letter: "[Nuttall] handled the Step Two Hearing
along with Mr. Montecalvo. Mr. Nuttall had the responsibility to weigh in [sic] all the facts and
make a decision regarding my job of20 years with DHL." (ld.) The fact that Nuttall handled the
Step Two hearing does not indicate that his testimony would be relevant to Baez Romero's
claims. There is no indication in the record that Nuttall had any personal knowledge of the
underlying facts that led to the Step Two hearing. Therefore, Baez Romero's request to depose
Nuttall is DENIED.
Baez Romero requests leave to depose Jack Ruggiero ("Ruggiero") because "[h]e was the
Union business agent that was in charge of investigating my work place discrimination claims"
and because he is cited in the Amended Complaint as "someone who turned around and
discriminated against me by neglecting his duties to follow through with the investigation of my
3
work place discrimination ...." (!d.) Baez Romero's claims against Local 295 do not include
employment discrimination. Accordingly, allegations that Ruggiero discriminated against Baez
Romero do not support Baez Romero's argument that his testimony would be relevant to any
party's claim or defense. Additionally, Local 295 has already agreed to the deposition ofIgnacio
Garcia, the Local 295 shop steward. (Docket No. 89.) There is no indication in the record that
Jack Ruggiero is in possession of information relevant to any party's claim or defense that
Ignacio Garcia would not also be able to provide. Therefore, Baez Romero's request to depose
Ruggiero is DENIED.
SO ORDERED this 12th day of December 2013
New York, New York
United States Magistrate Judge
4
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?