Jones v. Dole Food Company, Inc et al

Filing 65

ORDER denying 58 Motion to Compel; denying 59 Motion to Deem Admitted. Signed by Magistrate Judge David S. Cayer on 7/11/11. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(gpb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
CIVIL NO. 3:10CV292-MOC-DSC
ARLESTER EL JONES,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
DOLE FOOD COMPANY, INC., et. al., )
)
Defendants.
)
)
____________________________________)

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on pro se Plaintiff’s “Motion to Compel Discovery”
(document #58), “Motion to Deem Admitted” (document #59), and the parties’ associated briefs
and exhibits. See documents ## 62-64.
In their brief, Defendants establish that the discovery Plaintiff seeks in his Motion to
Compel has already been denied by the Court or provided by the Defendants. Accordingly,
Plaintiff’s “Motion to Compel Discovery” (document #58) is denied as moot.
In his “Motion to Deem Admitted” (document #59), Plaintiff asks the Court to deem
admitted the contents of the investigative file prepared by the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (“EEOC”) during the course of its administrative process. Specifically, Plaintiff asks
the Court to treat as admitted the allegations contained in his administrative charge.
As Defendants point out, Plaintiff has never served a request for admissions asking
Defendants to admit or deny the truth of the allegations contained in the investigative file.
Moreover, it is well established that “private-sector employees not only had the right to a de novo
judicial consideration of their discrimination claims without regard to the EEOC's finding of
reasonable cause, but also that they were unable to use the EEOC's finding to compel a finding of

discrimination in the district court.” Laber v. Harvey, 438 F.3d 404, 420 (4th Cir. 2006) (emphasis
added) (citing McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 93 S. Ct. 1817 (1973); Chandler
v. Roudebush, 425 U.S. 840, 844-45, 96 S. Ct. 1949 (1976)). Accordingly, for this and the other
reasons stated in Defendants’ brief, Plaintiff’s “Motion to Deem Admitted” (document #59) is
denied.
NOW THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED:
1. Plaintiff’s “Motion to Compel Discovery” (document #58) and “Motion to Deem
Admitted” (document #59) are DENIED.
2. The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to the pro se Plaintiff; to defense
counsel; and to the Honorable Max O. Cogburn, Jr.
SO ORDERED.
Signed: July 11, 2011

2