BIZIC v. CASTLE CO-PACKERS LLC

Filing 32

MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER re 31 MOTION for Sanctions , Including Emergency Request to Stay filed by CASTLE CO-PACKERS LLC indicating that Motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. ORDERED that Plaintiff is hereby directed to prov ide full, complete and verified Answers to Defendant's First Set of Interrogatories and Responses to Defendant's First Request for Production of documents no later than 2/18/2016. The failure to provide the above may result in dismissal of this action. FURTHER ORDERED that fact discovery is extended to 4/1/2016. Counsel shall contact court to schedule post-discovery conference within one week of close of fact discovery. Defendant's motion is DENIED in all other respects. Signed by Judge Maurice B. Cohill on 2/4/16. (rtw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
JESSICA BIZIC
Plaintiff,

v.
CASTLE CO-PACKERS LLC,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil No. 14-1366

MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER

Presently before the Court is Defendant's Motion for Sanctions, Including Emergency
Request to Stay. ECF No. 31. This motion follows our previous Order directing Plaintiff to
provide full, complete and verified Answers to Defendant's First Set of Interrogatories and
Responses to Defendant's First Request for Production of documents within fourteen (14) days
of the Order. ECF No. 30. In the instant motion Defendant complains that Plaintiff has still not
provided Defendant with full, complete, and verified discovery responses. Specifically,
Defendant states that on October 27, 2015, "Plaintiff provided unverified and incomplete
responses" to discovery requests and provided none of the documents referenced in the
responses. Def. Mot.

~

12.

We have reviewed the responses provided by Plaintiffs counsel. It is true they the
verification page is not signed by Plaintiff. It is also true that Plaintiffs counsel refers to a small
number of documents that have not been provided.

She refers to personally generated

documents of a resume, a "log" and a job search log; as well as a Pay stub, OSHA and EEOC
complaint, and an EEOC charge. Plaintiffs counsel indicates that the documents identified in
the responses were to be supplemented.

Clearly, Plaintiff has not fully complied with discovery in this case. At a minimum,
Plaintiff needs to deliver to Defendant the documents in her possession that Defendant is unable
to obtain in any other fashion. In addition, Plaintiff must verify that the discovery responses
provided by her counsel are true and correct. However, we disagree with defense counsel's
descriptions of Plaintiffs noncompliance as "woefully deficient." Def.

Mot.~

13. Assuming that

Plaintiff verifies the responses, Plaintiff has appeared to provide relevant information regarding
the alleged facts in her Amended Complaint. This is not to excuse Plaintiffs failure to provide
her resume, log, and job search log, as it appears those documents will provide more complete
information about Plaintiffs job qualifications, employment history, attempts at mitigation, and
other pertinent information.

However, as noted by defense counsel, this case concerns an

extremely limited time-frame and only a handful of people, most of who were or are employed
by Defendant.
We also note that throughout the motion defense counsel includes irrelevant references to
alleged facts and unnecessary commentary on the merits of the case that are inappropriate in a
discovery motion.

For example, counsel calls the Plaintiffs lawsuit "unfounded" and "ill-

conceived." De f. Mot.

~~

Defendant's Answer. Def.

1 & 25. He asserts the facts of the case as if they are proven, citing to
Mot.~~

5 & 6.

Defense counsel also refers to the fact that Plaintiff brought an employment
discrimination claim based on gender even though her supervisor was also a female. See Def.
Mot.

~

6 ("Incredibly, Bizic contends that a female supervisor discriminated against her due to

her sex."), &

~

25 ("Bizic filed this ill-conceived lawsuit contending her termination resulted

from gender discrimination by a female supervisor." (emphasis in original)). To the extent that
counsel included his remarks in order to ridicule Plaintiffs claim, we again note that such

2

remarks are inappropriate in a discovery motion. To the extent that counsel intended to insinuate
that the case lacks legal merit because her supervisor is of the same gender, we direct counsel to
a 1998 United States Supreme Court decision in which the Court stated "we hold today that
nothing in Title VII necessarily bars a claim of discrimination "because of ... sex" merely
because the plaintiff and the defendant (or the person charged with acting on behalf of the
defendant) are of the same sex." Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc., 523 U.S. 75, 79
(1998).
Finally, defense counsel prematurely invokes Rule 11 sanctions.

In her Amended

Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that she was replaced by a male worker. In response to Defendant's
interrogatory to identify the male worker, Plaintiff indicates that she does not know the identity
of this person. To defense counsel this response "raises Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11
implications." Def.

Mot.~

15. We disagree. That the Plaintiff is unable to identify the person

she alleges replaced her, after less than 4 days on the job, appears to the Court to be
unremarkable at this stage of the litigation.
As a remedy for Plaintiff's failure to comply with discovery requests, Defendant seeks
dismissal with prejudice.

Alternatively, Defendant requests that we stay this matter until

Plaintiff provides discovery.

Finally, Defendant requests that we order Plaintiff to pay

attorneys' fees for preparation of the instant motion.
Dismissal of this case based on the allegations of noncompliance is out of proportion to
the discovery failures. We likewise see no basis to order that the case be stayed. Instead we will
Order Plaintiff to comply with her discovery obligations or risk dismissal of the case. We will
also extend discovery. We decline to relieve Defendant from its discovery obligations, as it is
apparent that Plaintiff's missing discovery information is miniscule or readily known by

3

Defendant.

We see no prejudice m holding Defendant to its obligations.

See also

Fed.R.Civ.Proc. 26(d)(3)(A) & (B).
We decline to order Plaintiff to pay attorneys' fees as it is apparent that counsel's motion
does not warrant the award of fees based on Plaintiff having not verified discovery responses and
not providing a handful of self-generated documents. Defendant is not prejudiced by the failures
of Plaintiff. As the case proceeds, Defendant may be able to point to the lack of supporting
information to its advantage as we will not allow Plaintiff to rely on unsupported or unverified
factual allegations or information.
In conclusion, we find that Plaintiff has failed to provide full and complete responses to
Defendant's discovery requests.

Accordingly, we will order Plaintiff to provide full and

complete responses no later than February 18, 2016. The failure to comply with this Order may
result in dismissal of this action. We note that the pleadings indicate that Plaintiffs counsel has
had difficulty in communicating with his client, and in fact may not know where she is living.
This is supported by the fact that counsel was unable to obtain his client's signature to verify his
discovery responses. We note that the failure of counsel to contact his client in order to comply
with her obligations will not be a sufficient basis to avoid dismissal of this case given the length
of time we have already given Plaintiff to comply with her discovery obligations.
Accordingly, the following ORDER is hereby entered.

AND NOW this J./

~
day of February, 2016, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and

DECREED that Defendant's Motion for Sanctions, Including Emergency Request to Stay is
GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows.

4

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff is hereby directed to provide full, complete and verified
Answers to Defendant's First Set of Interrogatories and Responses to Defendant's First Request
for Production of documents no later than February 18, 2016.
The failure to provide the above may result in dismissal of this action.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that fact discovery is hereby extended to April 1, 2016.
Counsel shall contact the court to schedule the post-discovery conference within one week of the
close of fact discovery.
Defendant's motion is DENIED in all other respects.

f!4a.,....Cohill, Jr.
~& teo~,~Maurice B.
Senior United States District Court Judge

5