St. John v. Fresh Market et al
Filing
41
Opinion & Order signed by Judge James S. Gwin on 8/2/16. The Court, for the reasons set forth in this order, denies plaintiff's motion to compel disclosure of discovery, denies defendants' motion to strike plaintiff's reply brief, and grants defendants' motion to compel the attendance of plaintiff at a deposition scheduled for 8/4/16. This Court declines to sanction plaintiff at this time. (Related Docs. 34 , 36 , and 40 ) (D,MA)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
------------------------------------------------------:
LARS ST. JOHN,
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
v.
:
:
:
THE FRESH MARKET, et al.,
:
:
Defendants.
:
:
-------------------------------------------------------
CASE NO. 15-CV-1172
OPINION AND ORDER
[Resolving Docs. 34, 36, 40]
JAMES S. GWIN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:
Plaintiff St. John brings discrimination and harassment claims against Defendants The
Fresh Market, et al. On June 24, 2016, Plaintiff St. John moved for an order compelling
disclosure of discovery.1 Defendants oppose and move to strike Plaintiff’s reply to their
opposition.2 On July 27, 2016, Defendants moved for an order compelling the attendance of
Plaintiff St. John at a deposition scheduled for August 4, 2016. 3 For the reasons below, this
Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion. This Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion and ORDERS
Plaintiff St. John to appear at the scheduled deposition on August 4, 2016.
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff failed to appear at his scheduled deposition on July 14, 2016, a date Plaintiff had
requested.4 When Defendants reached out to Plaintiff inquiring as to his absence, he responded
that he had a family emergency.5 Defendants then reached out to Plaintiff St. John to attempt to
1
Doc. 34.
Doc. 35, 37, 40.
3
Doc. 36.
4
Doc. 36-1 Exh. 2.
5
Id. at Exh. 6.
2
Case No.15-CV-1172
Gwin, J.
reschedule the deposition.6 Plaintiff St. John responded that he was only available on August 15
or 16, 2016.7 Defendants explained that those dates were too close to the dispositive motion
deadline of August 29, 2016.8 Plaintiff then refused to agree or offer any other dates.
Because Plaintiff failed to appear at his scheduled deposition and subsequently failed to
in good faith find an alternate date given the fast approaching dispositive deadlines, this Court
ORDERS Defendant to appear for his deposition on August 4th, 2016. This Court declines to
sanction Plaintiff at this time
Plaintiff St. John moves to compel Defendants’ responses to interrogatories. There is no
indication that Plaintiff sought in good faith to resolve the dispute with Defendants before filing
his motion as he is required to under Local Rule 37.1.
Plaintiff says he did not timely receive the discovery. However, the record shows
Defendants mailed the discovery to Plaintiff on June 9, 2016 and emailed him a courtesy copy.9
Plaintiffs interrogatory Nos. 1, 2, 3, 7, 8 and 9 all request that Defendants “identify” Fresh
Market employees. Defendants provided job titles in response. Plaintiff now says he wants
addresses and phone numbers.
Further, Plaintiff seeks the production of documents through the interrogatories.
Documents must be sought through properly served document requests, not interrogatories.
Regardless, Defendants have responded that the surveillance video footage Plaintiff seeks does
not exist because there are no cameras on Fresh Market’s property.10
Plaintiff’s requests were overly broad. He requested the identities of managers outside of
his department (Interrogatory No. 3), all cashiers (Interrogatory No. 7), all human resources
6
Id. at Exhs 8, 9, 10.
Id. at Exh. 11.
8
Id. at Exh. 12.
9
Doc. 35 at Exh. A.
10
Doc. 35 at 6.
7
2
Case No.15-CV-1172
Gwin, J.
employees (Interrogatory No. 8) and the charity the bakery department donated goods to in 2012
and 2013 (Interrogatory No. 10). This information is not related in any way to the claims in
Plaintiff’s lawsuit as his claims center around alleged discrimination and harassment in the
bakery department.
Thus, this Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to compel disclosure of discovery. This
Court also DENIES Defendants’ motion to strike Plaintiff’s reply.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 2, 2016
s/
James S. Gwin
JAMES S. GWIN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
3
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?