Getachew v. Central Ohio Workforce Investment Corporation et al

Filing 62

ORDER Plaintiffs Motion to Compel, Doc. No. 55 , and Plaintiffs Motion for Sanctions, Doc. No. 57, are DENIED. If plaintiffs memorandum in opposition due to re 61 Motion to Seal Document; 60 MOTION due 11/26/12. Signed by Magistrate Judge Norah McCann King on 11/13/12. (rew)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

ALEMAYEHU GETACHEW,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 2:11-CV-169
JUDGE SARGUS
MAGISTRATE JUDGE KING

CENTRAL OHIO WORKFORCE
INVESTMENT CORPORATION, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER
This is an employment action in which plaintiff, who is proceeding without the assistance
of counsel, claims that he was discriminated against on the bases of race, national origin and age.
Plaintiff also asserts a claim of retaliation. Only the claims against defendant Goodwill
Industries of Central Ohio, Inc., remain pending. This matter is now before the Court on
Plaintiff’s Motion Requesting Defendant Goodwill’s Counsels to Comply with Rule 26(a)(1)
Disclosure and to Disregard Concealment of Material Fact, Doc. No. 55 [“Plaintiff’s Motion to
Compel”], Plaintiff’s Motion Requesting the Court Take Corrective Action on Defendant
Goodwill Who Was Confronted with Misrepresentation – Either in the Form Compensatory
Reward or by Vacating the Court’s Order for His Motion Filed on August 30, 2012 and Resume
the Settlement Conference, Doc. No. 57 [“Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions”], and on Defendant
Goodwill Industries of Central Ohio, Inc.’s Combined Emergency Motion to Seal and Motion to
Stay Briefing on Plaintiff’s Motions until the Court Rules on Goodwill’s Motion to Dismiss, Doc.
No. 61, [“Defendant’s Motion to Seal and to Stay”].

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel and Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions are based on plaintiff’s
contention that defendant failed to make the disclosures required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1). To
the contrary, however, and as evidenced by defendant’s actual disclosures, Exhibit A, attached to
Doc. No. 56, defendant has identified the witnesses and has generally described the documents
upon which, defendant represents, it intends to rely in the litigation. Defendant will be held to
its representation. The fact that plaintiff may intend to rely on other witnesses or documents does
not, of course, mean that defendant has failed to fulfill its obligations under Rule 26(a)(1).
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel and Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions are without merit.
Defendant’s Motion to Seal and to Stay asks that recent filings by plaintiff, i.e., Doc.
Nos. 55, 60, be sealed because they contain personal identifying information of other individuals
in violation of Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2. That motion is meritorious and Doc. Nos. 55, 60 will be
ordered sealed by the Clerk. Moreover, plaintiff is advised that the Court will order stricken any
future filings made by him that contain unredacted personal identifiers.
Defendant also asks that proceedings on Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment on Partial
Findings and on Defendant Goodwill’s Officials Misrepresentation under Oath to EEOC and the
Ohio Civil Rights Commission to Cover Up Impermissible Employment Practices, Doc. No. 60,
be stayed pending resolution of its previously filed Defendant Goodwill Industries of Central
Ohio, Inc.’s Combined Motion to Dismiss and to Extend its Deadline for Filing its Motion for
Summary Judgment, Doc. No. 58, which is based on plaintiff’s alleged failure to cooperate in the
discovery process.1 If plaintiff intends to oppose that portion of defendant’s motion, he shall file
a response to the motion no later than November 26, 2012.

1

That motion is not yet ripe for resolution.

2

WHEREUPON Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel, Doc. No. 55, and Plaintiff’s Motion for
Sanctions, Doc. No. 57, are DENIED. To the extent that Defendant’s Motion to Seal and to
Stay, Doc. No. 61, asks that Doc. Nos. 55, 60, be sealed because they contain personal
identifying information of other individuals in violation of Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2, that motion is
GRANTED. The Clerk is DIRECTED to seal Doc. Nos. 55, 60. Moreover, plaintiff is advised
that the Court will order stricken any future filings made by him that contain unredacted
personally identifying information of other individuals.
To the extent that the motion seeks a stay of proceedings on Doc. No. 60, Defendant’s
Motion to Seal and to Stay, Doc. No. 61, remains pending. If plaintiff intends to oppose that
motion, he shall file a memorandum in opposition to the motion no later than November 26,
2012. If its request to stay is denied, defendant may have fourteen (14) days, after resolution of
its request to stay, to respond to Doc. No. 60.

November 13, 2012
DATE

s/ Norah McCann King
NORAH McCANN KING
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3