Hossian v. Duke Energy

Filing 50

ORDER denying 49 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Honorable Mary Geiger Lewis on 11/05/2018.(dsto, ) (Main Document 50 replaced on 11/5/2018 per chambers to modify) (dsto)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
FLORENCE DIVISION
ZIAUL M. HOSSAIN,
Plaintiff
vs.
DUKE ENERGY,
Defendant.

§
§
§
§ CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:18-404-MGL-TER
§
§
§

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Plaintiff Ziaul M. Hossain filed this action against Defendant Duke Energy (Duke) alleging
employment discrimination because of his race and disability. He is proceeding pro se.
Pending before the Court is Defendant Duke Energy’s (Duke) (1) motion for reconsideration
of the Court’s October 29, 2018, Order and (2) motion to stay proceedings. Duke misapprehends
both the Local Rule applicable to employment discrimination cases filed in this District and the
Court’s October 29, 2018, Order.
First, concerning the Local Rule, Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(g) provides the Clerk of Court
will refer to the Magistrate Judge “[a]ll pretrial proceedings involving litigation arising out of
employment discrimination cases invoking federal statutes that proscribe fair discrimination
employment[.]” Duke’s motions to compel and motion to stay, of course, fall under this rule.
Second, regarding the Order, Duke inexplicably states Duke “requested the Court to compel
Plaintiff to comply with his discovery obligations, but the Court Order on that Motion did not
address the alternatively-stated Motion to Compel. . . . Defendant respectfully requests that the

Court reconsider Defendant’s alternatively-stated Motion to Compel and issue an Order compelling
Plaintiff’s compliance with Defendant’s discovery requests.” Duke’s motion 4-5. Duke’s assertion
the Court failed to address its motion to compel is simply not so. In the Court’s October 29, 2018,
Order, it specifically held: “Inasmuch as the Magistrate Judge is handling all pretrial matters in this
action, . . . the Court is of the opinion it ought to leave the adjudication of Duke’s motion to compel
to the wise discretion of the learned Magistrate Judge.” Order 2.
For these reasons, Duke’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED. Its motion to stay, along
with its motion to compel, will be adjudicated by the Magistrate Judge.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed this 5th day of November, 2018, in Columbia, South Carolina.
s/ Mary G. Lewis
MARY G. LEWIS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2