St. John v. Fresh Market et al, No. 1:2015cv01172 - Document 41 (N.D. Ohio 2016)
Court Description: Opinion & Order signed by Judge James S. Gwin on 8/2/16. The Court, for the reasons set forth in this order, denies plaintiff's motion to compel disclosure of discovery, denies defendants' motion to strike plaintiff's reply brief, and grants defendants' motion to compel the attendance of plaintiff at a deposition scheduled for 8/4/16. This Court declines to sanction plaintiff at this time. (Related Docs. 34 , 36 , and 40 ) (D,MA)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
St. John v. Fresh Market et al Doc. 41 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO ------------------------------------------------------: LARS ST. JOHN, : : Plaintiff, : : v. : : : THE FRESH MARKET, et al., : : Defendants. : : ------------------------------------------------------- CASE NO. 15-CV-1172 OPINION AND ORDER [Resolving Docs. 34, 36, 40] JAMES S. GWIN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE: Plaintiff St. John brings discrimination and harassment claims against Defendants The Fresh Market, et al. On June 24, 2016, Plaintiff St. John moved for an order compelling disclosure of discovery.1 Defendants oppose and move to strike Plaintiff’s reply to their opposition.2 On July 27, 2016, Defendants moved for an order compelling the attendance of Plaintiff St. John at a deposition scheduled for August 4, 2016. 3 For the reasons below, this Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion. This Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion and ORDERS Plaintiff St. John to appear at the scheduled deposition on August 4, 2016. DISCUSSION Plaintiff failed to appear at his scheduled deposition on July 14, 2016, a date Plaintiff had requested.4 When Defendants reached out to Plaintiff inquiring as to his absence, he responded that he had a family emergency.5 Defendants then reached out to Plaintiff St. John to attempt to 1 Doc. 34. Doc. 35, 37, 40. 3 Doc. 36. 4 Doc. 36-1 Exh. 2. 5 Id. at Exh. 6. 2 Dockets.Justia.com Case No.15-CV-1172 Gwin, J. reschedule the deposition.6 Plaintiff St. John responded that he was only available on August 15 or 16, 2016.7 Defendants explained that those dates were too close to the dispositive motion deadline of August 29, 2016.8 Plaintiff then refused to agree or offer any other dates. Because Plaintiff failed to appear at his scheduled deposition and subsequently failed to in good faith find an alternate date given the fast approaching dispositive deadlines, this Court ORDERS Defendant to appear for his deposition on August 4th, 2016. This Court declines to sanction Plaintiff at this time Plaintiff St. John moves to compel Defendants’ responses to interrogatories. There is no indication that Plaintiff sought in good faith to resolve the dispute with Defendants before filing his motion as he is required to under Local Rule 37.1. Plaintiff says he did not timely receive the discovery. However, the record shows Defendants mailed the discovery to Plaintiff on June 9, 2016 and emailed him a courtesy copy.9 Plaintiffs interrogatory Nos. 1, 2, 3, 7, 8 and 9 all request that Defendants “identify” Fresh Market employees. Defendants provided job titles in response. Plaintiff now says he wants addresses and phone numbers. Further, Plaintiff seeks the production of documents through the interrogatories. Documents must be sought through properly served document requests, not interrogatories. Regardless, Defendants have responded that the surveillance video footage Plaintiff seeks does not exist because there are no cameras on Fresh Market’s property.10 Plaintiff’s requests were overly broad. He requested the identities of managers outside of his department (Interrogatory No. 3), all cashiers (Interrogatory No. 7), all human resources 6 Id. at Exhs 8, 9, 10. Id. at Exh. 11. 8 Id. at Exh. 12. 9 Doc. 35 at Exh. A. 10 Doc. 35 at 6. 7 2 Case No.15-CV-1172 Gwin, J. employees (Interrogatory No. 8) and the charity the bakery department donated goods to in 2012 and 2013 (Interrogatory No. 10). This information is not related in any way to the claims in Plaintiff’s lawsuit as his claims center around alleged discrimination and harassment in the bakery department. Thus, this Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to compel disclosure of discovery. This Court also DENIES Defendants’ motion to strike Plaintiff’s reply. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: August 2, 2016 s/ James S. Gwin JAMES S. GWIN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 3
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
