Wright v. James City County

Filing 83

MEMORANDUM DISMISSAL ORDER. The court GRANTS Defendant's Second Motion for Supplemental Releive and DISMISSES this action. Advising of appeal procedures. Copy of this order distributed to plaintiff and counsel for the defendant on 3/18/14. Signed by Chief District Judge Rebecca Beach Smith on 3/18/14 and filed on 3/18/14.(afar)

I !L
UNITED

STATES

DISTRICT

COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA

MAR 1 8 2014

Newport News Division
(

_

JULIET WRIGHT,

-JUT

MO

Plaintiff,

ACTION NO.

v.

4:12cvl53

JAMES CITY COUNTY,
Defendant

MEMORANDUM DISMISSAL

On September 17,

2012,

ORDER

Plaintiff brought this pro se action

alleging employment discrimination on the basis of disability.
Procedural History

As this case progressed and as substantive matters were being
considered, discovery disputes were ongoing.

Plaintiff initially

failed to produce medical records and other information in response
to Defendant's discovery requests.

Plaintiff expressed concern

about the confidentiality of these records.
consent

protective

Plaintiff

order

to

refused to sign

resolved,

Magistrate

it.

Judge

address

Defendant prepared a

Plaintiff's

concern,

but

After the impasse could not be

Leonard

held

a

hearing

on

the

outstanding discovery issues on June 19, 2013, and issued an Order

on June 20,

2013.

D.E.

ff

59.

The Order required Plaintiff to

submit responsive materials to certain discovery requests1 by July
5,

2013, and the court entered a Protective Order to cover any

confidential information.

Nonetheless,

D.E.

# 60.

Plaintiff continued to refuse to submit medical

records and discovery materials responsive to certain requests.
Among

other

records,

documents

benefits,

Plaintiff

relating

withheld

to

her

her

pursuit

relevant

of

medical

Social

Security

and documents related to prior EEOC proceedings.

D.E. # 72.
Relief,

things,

See

Accordingly, Defendant filed a Motion for Supplementary

seeking an

earlier Order.
Defendant's

Order

requiring

D.E. # 65.

Motion

for

compliance

with

the court's

On December 9, 2013, the court granted

Supplementary

Relief

and

again

ordered

Plaintiff to respond to the requests for production of documents.

D.E. # 72.

The December 9, 2013, Order compelled responses to the

outstanding requests for production of documents,
requests 1,

2,

3,

7,

and 8.

specifically

The court explained thoroughly its

reasoning and specifically addressed Plaintiff's objections.

The

Order

not

ruled

that

Plaintiff's

failure

to

respond

was

substantially justified or harmless because her refusal to produce
the information would hamper Defendant's ability to defend this

action.

D.E. # 72 at 7.

The court declined, however, to impose

monetary sanctions at that time because of Plaintiff's pro se and

'Specifically,

Plaintiff was ordered to respond fully to

documents requests 1-8,

10,

and 12.
2

in forma pauperis status.
chance to comply.

Instead, Plaintiff was afforded another

She was directed to respond fully to discovery

no later than December 23, 2013.

Defendant was directed to file a

Second Motion for Supplemental Relief, if Plaintiff did not timely
respond.

Plaintiff did not respond by the deadline.
on December 19,

9, 2013,

Instead, she filed

2013, a Motion for Reconsideration of the December

Order.

D.E.

# 73.

The court denied Plaintiff's Motion

for Reconsideration by Order filed December 20, 2013. D.E. # 76.
Defendant then wrote Plaintiff and offered her additional time

to

comply.

Plaintiff replied by letter dated January 3,

2014,

reiterating that she refused and that she intended to continue to
refuse

letter,
Relief.

to

produce

the

Defendant
D.E.

Plaintiff's

After

receipt

then filed a Second Motion

#

case

documents.

78.

The

pursuant

to

Second

Fed.

Motion

R.

Civ.

of

for

Supplementary

seeks

P.

Plaintiff's

dismissal

of

37 (b) (2) (A) (v) .

Plaintiff responded to the Second Motion for Supplementary Relief,
and

Defendant

replied.

Accordingly,

the

Second

Motion

for

Supplementary Relief is ripe for decision.

Analysis of Second Motion for Supplementary Relief

Dismissal of an action as a result of discovery abuse is

obviously one of the most severe sanctions that can be imposed.
But,

in this case,

appropriate

remedy

it is indeed warranted.
for

discovery

In determining the

sanctions,

the

court

must

consider, "(1) whether the non-complying party acted in bad faith,
(2)

the

amount

adversary,

of

prejudice

that

non-compliance

caused

the

(3) the need for deterrence of the particular sort of

non-compliance, and (4) whether less drastic sanctions would have
been effective."

F.3d 305,

348

Belk v.

(4th Cir.

Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd.

2001).

269

is sought as

When dismissal

of Educ,

the

sanction, the court specifically considers:

(1) the degree to which the party's non-compliance is due
to willfulness, bad faith or any fault of that party and
not to simple inability to comply;
(2) whether the
party's non-compliance has "materially" affected the
"substantial rights of the adverse party" and has
prejudiced the adverse party's ability to present its
case; (3) the degree to which the party's non-compliance
represents such "flagrant bad faith" and "callous
disgregard" of the party's obligation under the Rules as
to warrant the sanction not simply for the purpose of
preventing prejudice to the adverse party but as a
necessary deterrent to others; and (4) whether the
sanction of dismissal is no more severe than is necessary
to prevent prejudice to the party moving for dismissal.
Kearns v. General Motors Corp.. No. 93-966-A, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
22294, *8 (E.D. Va. Aug. 8, 1997)
America.

Inc..

561 F.2d 494,

(quoting Wilson v. Volkswagen of

503-05

(4th Cir.

1977)).

These factors are satisfied in this case.

Plaintiff has been

repeatedly advised of her obligations both by Defendant and by the
court.
this

Plaintiff has advanced a variety of arguments throughout

litigation

medical records.
confidential

as

to

why

she

should not

have

to

produce

her

Her arguments have included that: the records are

under

HIPAA;

that

she

is

entitled

to

withhold

the

records because she plans to use them for rebuttal or impeachment

during the trial; that the discovery deadline has passed and that
therefore

the

Defendant

waived

her

non-compliance;

that

the

Magistrate Judge's Orders are "illegal" and predicated upon bias;
that producing the documents will "disturb" the pending summary

judgment motion;

and that the requested information could be

obtained through FOIA.

patiently

explained

The court has considered each objection and

its

basis

for

overruling

each

Plaintiff is not the final arbiter of what the law is.

argument.
The court

is, and the court has not agreed with Plaintiff.

This court previously found dismissal an appropriate sanction
for another litigant who "continue[d] to litigate in a style which
apparently suits his own version of how the law should work,
which ignore [d]
1997 U.S.

the reality of how the

Dist LEXIS 22294,

of an inability to comply,
willful

adherence

to

her

*13.

law does work."

but

Kearns,

Plaintiff here has acted not out

or out of confusion,
incorrect

and

but in obstinate,

overruled

positions.

Magistrate Judge Leonard overruled these positions in the June 20,

2013,

Order, and again in the December 9, 2013, Order.

did not object to the June 20,

2013, Order,

U.S.C.

Civ.

§

636(b)

and

Fed.

R.

P.

Plaintiff

as permitted by 28

72.

Accordingly,

the

directives in the June 20th Order became final and binding upon

Plaintiff,2 and Plaintiff was obliged to comply.

2Plaintiff did file a "Motion for Reconsideration of Magistrate
Judge Leonard's Order dated December 9th 2013."
Magistrate
Judge
considered
the
Motion
as

D.E. # 73.
a
Motion

The
for

The

harm to Defendant

is substantial.

Document

request 1

asked for medical records relevant to Plaintiff's medical treatment

since 2008,

the first time Plaintiff mentioned

disabling condition.

the allegedly

If this case were to proceed without the

complete production of Plaintiff's medical records, Defendant would
be required to defend this case with only the selective medical
information Plaintiff chose to release - a fundamentally unfair

result.3

Plaintiff cannot maintain a suit premised upon an alleged

Reconsideration (as it was titled), and promptly denied it.
D.E.
# 76. Plaintiff did not state that she was objecting to the rulings

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a) or 28 U.S.C. § 636.
Plaintiff did,

however,

state in

D.E.

# 73 that she wanted:

"the Rulings and actions of Magistrate Judge Leonard to be reviewed
since the beginning of this action in this court by Judge Smith."
Therefore,
Plaintiff may have intended that the "Motion for
Reconsideration" be her objections to the December 9, 2013, Order.
Therefore, the undersigned reviewed fully the arguments set forth
in D.E. # 73, none of which have merit.
Plaintiff offered no valid
reason to refuse to produce the medical records in her possession
in their entirety. That the discovery cutoff passed before Plaintiff
complied with the requests does not excuse her non-compliance, which
thereby caused the time to run. Plaintiff is not entitled to select
which medical records she deems relevant and withhold the production
of

others

she

deems

otherwise.

Plaintiff

is

not

entitled

to

withhold relevant, responsive documents because she intends to use
them for impeachment.
Documents related to the prior EEOC

proceedings are not confidential or privileged.
Similarly, a
request for documents related to Plaintiff's pursuit of Social
Security benefits is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery
of potentially admissible evidence.
The Magistrate Judge's pre
trial discovery rulings are neither "clearly
contrary to law." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A).

3The

court further notes that Defendant

erroneous

[n]or

already has been

negatively
impacted
by
Plaintiff s
withholding
of
relevant
evidence.
Despite the lack of medical records, Defendant filed a
motion requesting summary judgment, D.E. # 42, which was referred
to United States Magistrate Judge Leonard for a recommended
disposition.
D.E. # 64. The Magistrate Judge recommended denying

disability, yet refuse to provide her medical records.

Plaintiff's

medical condition is not a tangential issue in this case, it is the
issue.

Dismissal

of

this

case

is

warranted

to

deter

continued

violations of the court's discovery orders, thereby preventing the

Defendant from defending this case.

unambiguously

told Plaintiff

After two Orders of this court

to produce

her medical records,

Plaintiff defiantly advised Defendant that "the only way you will

get any medical documents from my doctors or me is if the Health
and Human Services along with the Justice Department says you can
. . . ."

D.E.

# 79-2 at

3.

She further stated,

"I

do not care

what the Magistrate Judge wrote because he abused his discretion
and acted with plain error outside the law in accordance to the
[sic] all the legal arguments and research that I conducted."
at 2.
less

Id.

Not only does this defiance of court orders show that no
drastic

sanction

than

dismissal

would

be

effective,

it

highlights the need to demonstrate that litigants must understand
that heeding the court's orders is not optional.

As expressed by

the motion because of uncertainty about
Plaintiff's medical
condition. D.E. # 75.
Specifically, the Magistrate Judge noted
that the record was uncertain as to when Plaintiff's tremors began
and as to their severity.
Defendant's ability to address these
issues was hindered by
Plaintiff's
failure to produce all
potentially relevant records.
The court does not now
Defendant's objection to D.E. # 25, filed January 3, 2014,

review
D.E. #

77, as the disposition of the Second Motion for Supplemental Relief
MOOTS consideration of the objection.
See infra, note 4 and
accompanying text.

one district court, "[t]he need to deter this type of stalling and

disrespect for the authority of the court is self-evident.
cannot

be

allowed

impunity."
Inc.. No.

June

to

direct

orders

of

the

court

with

Mut. Fed. Savings and Loan Ass'n v. Richards & Assocs.
86-0507-R,

13,

ignore

Parties

1988).

As

1988 U.S.

the

Dist. LEXIS 18408,

Fourth Circuit noted,

at *3 (W.D. Va.

"ignoring direct

orders of the court . . . must obviously be deterred."

Mut.

Fed.

Savings and Loan Ass'n v. Richards & Assocs.. Inc.. 872 F.2d 88, 93
(4th Cir.

1989).

The court finds that alternate or less drastic sanctions would

not suffice in this case.

Plaintiff has previously been granted

every opportunity and multiple extensions of time to provide the
information.

will not

Given

alter the

her

intransigence,

result.

additional

opportunities

Plaintiff had been sternly advised

before that "further disobedience to this Court's Order will not be

countenanced,"
of

the

D.E. # 72 at 8, so she was alerted to the gravity

situation

compliance

would

dismissal of

and

to

result

the

in

her action,

possibility

negative

that

continued

consequences,

requested by Defendant,

such
D.E.

non

as

the

# 78,

to

which Plaintiff responded with continued defiance. D.E. # 79. Given

Plaintiff's ongoing refusal to provide documents relevant to the
fundamental

issue

in

this

case,

prevent prejudice to Defendant.

no

more

limited

sanction

will

Conclusion

Under these facts,

dismissal of this action is appropriate.

See

Nat'l Hockey League v. Metro. Hockey Club,

643

(1976)

(finding that

appropriate"
Defendant's

Inc.,

427 U.S.

639,

the "extreme sanction of dismissal was

under similar facts).
Second Motion

for

Therefore,

Supplemental

the court GRANTS

Relief

and DISMISSES

this action.'1

Plaintiff may appeal from this Memorandum Dismissal Order by
forwarding a written notice of appeal to the Clerk of the United
States

District Court,

Newport News

Newport News, Virginia 23607.
by

the

Clerk

Memorandum

The

IT

Dismissal

Clerk

Dismissal
IS

within

Order

thirty

Division,

2400 West Avenue,

Said written notice must be received
(30)

days

from

the

date

of

this

Order.

is

DIRECTED

to

send

a

to

Plaintiff

and counsel

copy
for

of

this

Memorandum

Defendant.

SO ORDERED.

/s/^ !
Rebecca Beach Smith
Chief

United States District Judge
March

18 ,

2014

''This ruling renders the pending objection to the Report and
Recommendation, the Motion for Summary Judgment,
remaining issues MOOT.
See supra note 3.

and

all

other