Greene v. Mullis et al
Filing
146
ORDER denying 127 Motion to Compel. However, on or before 8/29/23, the Town SHALL FILE a response to this Order that addresses the question of whether sanctions should be considered. Plaintiff may file any response to the T own's submission on or before 9/12/2023. Plaintiff's 134 Motion is DENIED AS MOOT. Plaintiff's 139 Motion is DENIED. Plaintiff's 140 is DENIED. Plaintiff's 143 Motion is DENIED. Signed by US Magistrate Judge W. Carleton Metcalf on 8/15/2023. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.) (slm)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
3:17-cv-00638-RJC-WCM
MICHAEL LEE GREENE,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
v.
)
)
TOWN OF LILESVILLE, NC; and
)
KEVIN R. MULLIS
)
in his Individually Capacity,
)
)
Defendants.
)
______________________________________ )
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the following motions, all of which
have been filed by Plaintiff:
1. Motion for an Order Compelling Discovery (Doc. 127);
2. Motion for Ruling on Pending Motions to Compel (the “Motion for
Ruling,” Doc. 134);
3. Emergency Motion for Hearing Via Zoom (the “First Motion for Hearing,”
Doc. 139);
4. Emergency Motion for Hearing Via Zoom re: Conflict of Interest (the
“Second Motion for Hearing,” Doc. 140); and
5. Emergency Motion for the Appointment of Counsel (the “Motion to
Appoint Counsel,” Doc. 143).
I.
Relevant Background
On October 27, 2017, Michael Lee Greene (“Greene”) filed his original
Complaint naming the Town of Lilesville, North Carolina (the “Town”) and
former Chief of Police of the Town, Kevin R. Mullis (“Mullis”), as Defendants.
1
Case 3:17-cv-00638-RJC-WCM Document 146 Filed 08/15/23 Page 1 of 12
Doc. 1. Greene filed an Amended Complaint on December 12, 2017, and a
Second Amended Complaint on May 8, 2018. Docs. 6, 37.1
A Pretrial Order and Case Management Plan was entered on September
6, 2022. Doc. 98.
On December 12, 2022, Greene filed a Motion to Compel seeking, among
other things, production of Mullis’ personnel file and employment records (the
“Personnel File”). See Doc. 106, the “First Motion to Compel.”
Also on December 12, 2022, Greene filed two other motions to compel –
one relative to the Town’s initial disclosures (the “Second Motion to Compel,”
Doc. 107) and another relative to the Town’s responses to certain
interrogatories (the “Third Motion to Compel,” Doc. 108).2
On December 20, 2022, the Town responded to the First, Second, and
Third Motions to Compel. Doc. 110. With respect to Mullis’ Personnel File, the
Town represented that:
Plaintiff seeks Mullis’ personnel files and employment
records which are protected by N.C.G.S. § 160A-168. It
is illegal for Defendant to send this information
without a protective order. Id. Defendant sent Plaintiff
a letter, along with a proposed consent protective order
This case has a complicated procedural history, much of which is set forth in the
undersigned’s Memorandum and Recommendation on the Town’s Motion for
Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc. 144) and is not repeated here.
1
On January 17, 2023, Greene filed a Motion to Compel asking that Mullis be
directed to provide additional responses to certain interrogatories (the “Fourth
Motion to Compel,” Doc. 114). A ruling on the Fourth Motion to Compel was issued
on February 8, 2023. Doc. 119.
2
2
Case 3:17-cv-00638-RJC-WCM Document 146 Filed 08/15/23 Page 2 of 12
for the release of these documents. See Exhibit 1.
During the telephone conference with Plaintiff,
counsel notified Plaintiff that he would send a
protective order. Defendant will provide these
documents upon receipt of a protective order signed by
all parties.
Doc. 110 at 2.
On January 12, 2023, the Hon. David S. Cayer, United States Magistrate
Judge, granted in part and denied in part the First Motion to Compel, denied
the Second Motion to Compel as premature, and denied the Third Motion to
Compel. See Text-Only Orders, January 12, 2023. With respect to the First
Motion to Compel, Judge Cayer directed the Town to submit a proposed
protective order within seven days, and to produce Mullis’ Personnel File
within 14 days of the entry of a protective order.
On January 19, 2023, the Town filed a Motion for Protective Order “for
the release of city personnel records….” Doc. 117 at 1. A Consent Protective
Order was entered that same day. Doc. 118.
On February 28, 2023, the Town filed its Motion for Judgment on the
Pleadings. Doc. 122.
On March 10, 2023, Greene filed a fifth motion to compel, again seeking
production of Mullis’ Personnel File by the Town (the “Fifth Motion to Compel,”
Doc. 127).
3
Case 3:17-cv-00638-RJC-WCM Document 146 Filed 08/15/23 Page 3 of 12
On March 14, 2023, the Town provided supplemental responses to
Plaintiff’s document requests that stated the Town had no responsive
documents. Doc. 128-1.
On March 21, 2023, the Town responded to the Fifth Motion to Compel,
arguing that the Motion was deficient both because it did not comply with the
Local Rules and further because the Town had provided supplemental
responses on March 14, 2023. Doc. 128.
On April 5, 2023, the Hon. Susan C. Rodriguez, United States Magistrate
Judge, acting sua sponte, directed the Town to file a supplemental brief
explaining the inconsistency between its statements regarding the production
of Mullis’ Personnel File as well as its present contention that it did not possess
those materials (the “April 5 Order,” Doc. 130).
On April 24, 2023, Green filed the Motion for Ruling and requested that
the court “rule on motions to compel that Plaintiff filed on or about late
December 2022 or January 2023.” Doc. 134.
On April 25, 2023, the Town responded to the April 5 Order (the “April
25 Response,” Doc. 135).
On May 9, 2023, Greene filed the First and Second Motions for Hearing.
Docs. 139, 140. On May 19, 2023, the Town responded to both of those Motions.
Docs. 141, 142.
On July 14, 2023, Greene filed the Motion to Appoint Counsel. Doc. 143.
4
Case 3:17-cv-00638-RJC-WCM Document 146 Filed 08/15/23 Page 4 of 12
II.
Discussion
A. The Fifth Motion to Compel
The record reflects that Greene began seeking the production of Mullis’
Personnel File from the Town as early as October 2022. See Doc. 135.
The record also reflects that on November 14, 2022, counsel for the Town
was informed that the Personnel File was not in the Town’s possession, and
that, at some point before Greene filed the First Motion to Compel in December
of 2022, counsel for the Town told Greene that the Town may not have the
Personnel File. See Doc. 135; Doc. 106 at 3 (First Motion to Compel in which
Greene stated that he had conferred with counsel for the Town, who had
provided Greene “with the obviously incredible assertion that [the Town] ‘may
not still have Mullis personnel file’ because it’s a ‘small town.’”).
However, subsequent statements by the Town suggested that the Town
did possess the Personnel File. In particular, the Town objected to Greene’s
document requests based on confidentiality concerns (not based on an
assertion that the Town did not have the Personnel File) and the Town
represented that it would produce the Personnel File once a protective order
was in place. See Docs. 135; Doc. 110 at 2 (stating that the Town “will provide
5
Case 3:17-cv-00638-RJC-WCM Document 146 Filed 08/15/23 Page 5 of 12
[Mullis’ Personnel File] upon receipt of a protective order signed by all
parties”).3
Accordingly, on January 12, 2023, Judge Cayer granted the First Motion
to Compel in part and ordered the Town to produce the Personnel File within
fourteen days of the entry of a protective order. The Consent Protective Order
was entered on January 19, 2023, such that the Town’s deadline to produce the
Personnel File was February 2, 2023.
The Town, though, did not produce the Personnel File by February 2.
Instead, on March 14, 2023, in its supplemental responses, the Town (perhaps
for the first time) unequivocally stated that it did not have Mullis’ Personnel
File. Doc. 128-1.
Even considering the information set out in the Town’s April 25
Response, the positions the Town has taken on the issue of Mullis’ Personnel
File are troubling and raise numerous questions, including whether Town
personnel searched for the Personnel File sufficiently, why the Personnel File
could not be located, and why the Town did not advise Plaintiff clearly and
directly that it had been unable to locate the Personnel File. Instead, it was
Counsel for the Town acknowledges that the Town’s representations regarding the
Personnel File should have been clearer. See Doc. 135 at 2 (defense counsel’s
acknowledgement that he “should have stated that ‘Defendant will provide these
documents if available upon receipt of a protective order signed by all parties’”)
(emphasis in original).
3
6
Case 3:17-cv-00638-RJC-WCM Document 146 Filed 08/15/23 Page 6 of 12
not until March 14, 2023 –after the First Motion to Compel had been granted,
a Consent Protective Order had been entered, and Greene had filed the Fifth
Motion to Compel – that the Town, in the context of its supplemental
responses, formally advised that it did not have Mullis’ Personnel File.
Generally, a party may be sanctioned under the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure for failing to comply with its discovery obligations; in some cases,
the imposition of sanctions is required. See e.g., Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(b)(2)
(sanctions may be imposed where a party “fails to obey an order to provide or
permit discovery….”); Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(c)(a) (setting forth possible sanctions
“[i]f a party fails to provide information…as required by Rule 26(a) or (e),”
including payment of reasonable expenses including attorney’s fees).
Here, because the Town has now represented directly that it does not
have the Personnel File, it cannot be ordered to produce it. Therefore, the Fifth
Motion to Compel must be denied. See e.g., Jones v. Haire, No. 3:20-cv-00286MR, 2021 WL 5407857, at *2 (W.D.N.C. Nov. 18, 2021) (“The Court cannot
compel the Defendants to produce documents and video footage that does not
exist. The Motions to Compel are therefore denied”).4
The undersigned has recommended that the Town’s Motion for Judgment on the
Pleadings be granted. However, that recommendation is not based on any
information that may or may not be contained in Mullis’ Personnel File; rather, it is
premised of Greene’s inability to establish that the State of North Carolina lacked
probable cause to prosecute and convict Greene in a separate state criminal case. See
Doc. 144.
4
7
Case 3:17-cv-00638-RJC-WCM Document 146 Filed 08/15/23 Page 7 of 12
However, the undersigned will direct the Town to file a response to this
Order that addresses the question of whether sanctions should be considered,
particularly given that the inconsistency of the Town’s position has required
Greene to file, and the Court to address, multiple motions to compel.
B. The Motion for Ruling
Greene requests that the Court “rule on motions to compel that Plaintiff
filed on or about late December 2022 or January 2023.” Doc. 134.
As noted, on December 12, 2022, Greene filed three separate motions to
compel. Docs. 106, 107, 108. By text orders entered on January 12, 2023, Judge
Cayer ruled on those Motions.
On January 17, 2023, Greene filed the Fourth Motion to Compel. Doc.
114. Judge Cayer granted that Motion by Order entered on February 8, 2023.
Doc. 119.
Accordingly, the Motion for Ruling will be denied as moot.
C. First Motion for Hearing
In his First Motion for Hearing, Greene asks for a hearing on the
statement by the Town’s counsel that the Town does not possess Mullis’
Personnel File. More specifically, Greene requests that a Zoom hearing be
scheduled “where the Town’s Manager can be questioned, under oath”
regarding the Town’s possession of Mullis’ employment records. Doc. 139.
8
Case 3:17-cv-00638-RJC-WCM Document 146 Filed 08/15/23 Page 8 of 12
As the issues relating to the production of Mullis’ Personnel File are
addressed in relation to the Fifth Motion to Compel, the First Motion for
Hearing will be denied.
D. Second Motion for Hearing
In his Second Motion for Hearing, Greene asks the Court to conduct a
hearing via Zoom regarding “a potential conflict of interest, that may need to
be immediately addressed.” Doc. 140. In essence, Greene complains that the
Town’s counsel is interfering with Plaintiff’s attempts to obtain discovery from
Mullis, who is unrepresented.
The Town has responded (Doc. 142) and argues that Greene has failed to
comply with the Local Rules by attempting in good faith to resolve areas of
disagreement and by failing to file a supporting memorandum.
As the Town notes, the Local Rules generally require that motions in
civil cases show that counsel have conferred and attempted in good faith to
resolve areas of disagreement, or describe the timely attempts of the movant
to confer with opposing counsel. Motions that do not comply with this
requirement may be summarily denied. Consultation, though, is not required
in certain instances, including where the moving party is represented and the
nonmoving party is unrepresented. In addition, briefs are to be filed
contemporaneously with motions; certain exceptions apply but they are not
relevant here.
9
Case 3:17-cv-00638-RJC-WCM Document 146 Filed 08/15/23 Page 9 of 12
If Greene believes that the Town’s counsel has engaged in improper
activities regarding Greene’s attempts to obtain discovery from Mullis or
otherwise is subject to a conflict of interest, the parties should discuss those
matters thoroughly before the Court is asked to address them formally, as
contemplated by the Local Rules.
Accordingly, the Second Motion for Hearing will be denied.
E. Motion for the Appointment of Counsel
Greene states that he has obtained documents “that arguably prove” that
the Town “was in fact in possession” of Mullis’ Personnel File when this
litigation began in 2017 and that the Town’s counsel has made false statements
regarding the whereabouts of those materials. Greene also requests that
counsel now be appointed for him.
To the extent the Motion pertains to Greene’s attempts to obtain the
Personnel File, Greene has not provided or described the documents he
references and the issue of the Personnel File has otherwise been addressed in
connection with the Fifth Motion to Compel.
To the extent Greene requests that an attorney be appointed to represent
him in this civil action, the Motion will be denied. Litigants in civil cases do
not have a constitutional right to counsel “and the Fourth Circuit Court of
Appeals has instructed that courts should exercise their discretion to appoint
counsel for pro se civil litigants ‘only in exceptional cases.’” Robinson v.
10
Case 3:17-cv-00638-RJC-WCM Document 146 Filed 08/15/23 Page 10 of 12
Brickton Vill. Ass'n, Inc., No. 1:20-CV-00030-MR-WCM, 2020 WL 7865279, at
*1 (W.D.N.C. Dec. 30, 2020), aff'd, No. 21-1057, 2022 WL 2314370 (4th Cir.
June 28, 2022) (quoting Cook v. Bounds, 518 F.2d 779, 780 (4th Cir. 1975)).
Many of Greene’s claims have been dismissed and the undersigned has
recommended that the Town’s pending Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings
be granted as to Greene’s remaining claims against the Town.
In addition, even in the absence of that recommendation, the
undersigned does not find that this matter presents exceptional circumstances
that warrant the appointment of counsel. Greene has been proceeding pro se
since March 10, 2021 when his counsel was allowed to withdraw and has filed
numerous pro se motions, in some cases successfully. See Gatlin v. Piscitelli,
No. 3:20CV115, 2021 WL 683163, at n. 7 (E.D. Va. Feb. 22, 2021) (stating that
“[t]his action presents no complex issues or exceptional circumstances” and
that plaintiff’s “pleadings demonstrate that he is competent to represent
himself….”).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT:
1. Plaintiff’s Motion for an Order Compelling Discovery (Doc. 127) is
DENIED. However, on or before August 29, 2023, the Town SHALL
FILE a response to this Order that addresses the question of whether
sanctions should be considered. Plaintiff may file any response to the
Town’s submission on or before September 12, 2023.
11
Case 3:17-cv-00638-RJC-WCM Document 146 Filed 08/15/23 Page 11 of 12
2. Plaintiff’s Motion for Ruling on Pending Motions to Compel (Doc. 134)
is DENIED AS MOOT.
3. Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion for Hearing Via Zoom re: Doc. No. 135
(Doc 139) is DENIED.
4. Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion for Hearing Via Zoom re: Conflict of
Interest (Doc 140) is DENIED.
5. Plaintiff’s Emergency Judicial Notice and Emergency Motion for the
Appointment of Counsel (Doc 143) is DENIED.
Signed: August 15, 2023
12
Case 3:17-cv-00638-RJC-WCM Document 146 Filed 08/15/23 Page 12 of 12
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?