Casper v. Science Applications International Corporation, d/b/a SAIC, Inc.

Filing 68

MEMORANDUM ORDER adopting 64 Report and Recommendations, granting 25 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Science Applications International Corporation, d/b/a SAIC, Inc. Signed by Judge Michael H. Schneider on 8/21/12. (mrm, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
OF THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TEXARKANA DIVISION
JERRY CASPER, JR.
Plaintiff

§
§
§
VS.
§
§
SCIENCE APPLICATIONS
§
INTERNATIONAL CORP. d/b/a SAIC, §
INC.
§
Defendant
§

No. 5:11-CV-103

MEMORANDUM ORDER
The above-entitled and numbered civil action was heretofore referred to United States
Magistrate Judge Caroline M. Craven pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. The Report of the Magistrate
Judge which contains her proposed findings of fact and recommendations for the disposition of such
action has been presented for consideration. Plaintiff filed objections to the Report and
Recommendation. The Court conducted a de novo review of the Magistrate Judge’s findings and
conclusions.
Jerry Casper, Jr. (“Plaintiff”) filed objections to the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation that
Defendant Science Applications International Corporation d/b/a SAIC, Inc.’s motion for summary
judgment be granted and that Plaintiff’s above-entitled and numbered cause of action be dismissed
with prejudice. Among other things, Plaintiff asserts the Court has been neither sympathetic nor very
helpful in trying to “breach the Defendant’s stonewall” in discovery. According to Plaintiff, the
Court did not help him when presented with Plaintiff’s motion to compel. Plaintiff requests the
Court not accept the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge but rather allow additional time for
discovery and trial.
Plaintiff’s objections are without merit. As noted by the Magistrate Judge, Defendant filed

a motion for summary judgment and a motion to exclude Plaintiff’s expert testimony on February
28, 2012. That same day, Plaintiff filed motion for continuance, asserting he could not further
prosecute this lawsuit because Defendant had failed to respond to discovery. One month later, on
March 29, 2012, the Court issued an Order granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff’s motion
to compel, ordering Defendant to produce certain discovery.
While Plaintiff sought to have Defendant’s employees deposed in the United States, as
opposed to Kuwait, the Magistrate Judge allowed the depositions of Defendant’s employees to be
taken telephonically. Plaintiff never took the depositions. The Magistrate Judge also allowed
Plaintiff over four months to obtain necessary discovery and to respond to Defendant’s motion for
summary judgment. Although Plaintiff filed a response to Defendant’s summary judgment motion,
he did not file a response in opposition to Defendant’s motion to exclude.
Plaintiff argues he was presented with a “logistical nightmare” due to the fact he was injured
in Kuwait. Plaintiff chose to file suit here when Defendant’s relevant employees are located in
Kuwait. The Court has given Plaintiff ample time in which to procure discovery in order to respond
to Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff has failed to raise a genuine issue of
material fact to preclude summary judgment.
The Court is of the opinion that the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are
correct. Therefore, the Court hereby adopts the Report of the United States Magistrate Judge as the
findings and conclusions of this Court. Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED that Defendant Science Applications International Corporation d/b/a SAIC,
Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 25) is GRANTED. It is further
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s above-entitled and numbered cause of action is DISMISSED

2

WITH PREJUDICE.
It is SO ORDERED.
SIGNED this 21st day of August, 2012.

____________________________________
MICHAEL H. SCHNEIDER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3