Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

White v. Midwest Block and Brick, LLC

United States District Court, W.D. Missouri, Western Division

June 23, 2015

DEMETRIUS WHITE, Plaintiff,
v.
MIDWEST BLOCK AND BRICK, LLC, Defendant.

ORDER

NANETTE K. LAUGHREY, District Judge.

Plaintiff Demetrius White filed this lawsuit alleging violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. arising out of Defendant Midwest Block and Brick's decision not to hire him. Before the Court is Midwest's Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 37 and 41. [Doc. 30]. The Motion is granted in part. White's claims against Midwest are dismissed with prejudice. Midwest's request for fees and costs is denied.

I. Background

White, a pro se litigant, filed his complaint in July 2014 alleging employment discrimination based on race. In February 2015, the Court ordered White to provide his email address to the Court and to Midwest or otherwise state that he did not have one by March 13, 2015. [Doc. 16]. White did not respond to this Order.

On March 4, the Parties held their Rule 26(f) conference, meaning that White's initial disclosures were due on March 18. When White did not serve Rule 26 disclosures by March 18, Midwest sent a letter to him on March 30 informing him that the disclosures were overdue and requesting that White supply them by April 4. [Doc. 31-1]. White signed the return receipt on that letter, indicating he received the correspondence. Id. White did not serve his Rule 26 disclosures until April 9. [Doc. 25].

On March 16, Midwest served its initial interrogatories and requests for production by U.S. Mail, first-class, postage prepaid. [Doc. 21]. The deadline to respond was April 10, 2015. On March 30, White filed motions for extension of time to respond to Midwest's interrogatories and requests for production. [Docs. 22 & 23]. The motions were granted, and the deadline for White to respond was extended to April 13. [Doc. 24]. The Court stated that no further extensions to those response deadlines would be granted absent extraordinary circumstances. Id. White did not respond to Midwest's interrogatories and requests for production by April 13.

On April 16, Midwest sent White a letter detailing deficiencies in his Rule 26 disclosure and informing him that he missed the Court's deadline to respond to Midwest's interrogatories and requests for production. [Doc. 31-2]. Midwest asked White to respond by April 24. Id. Tracking information for this letter shows notice was left on April 18 and May 23, but White did not pick up the letter. Id.

On April 17, Midwest filed a notice of videotaped deposition of White, scheduled for May 8. [Doc. 26]. On April 24, Midwest re-sent its initial production of documents, the letter detailing White's discovery deficiencies, and its original notice of White's deposition. [Doc. 31-3]. Tracking information for this package shows it was delivered. Id.

Also on April 24, Midwest requested a conference with the Court to try to resolve the deficiencies in White's Rule 26 disclosures and because White still had not responded to Midwest's interrogatories and requests for production. The Court set a teleconference for May 1 and ordered the Parties to submit a one-page summary of the discovery dispute. [Doc. 27]. White was also ordered to call the Court's deputy to confirm his availability. Id. White did not confirm his availability and did not submit a one-page summary. On May 1, White and Midwest appeared at the teleconference. At the Court's request, White provided an email address and confirmed that he regularly checks his email. [Doc. 28]. White confirmed that he received written notice of the teleconference which required him to confirm his availability and submit a one-page summary. Id. The minute entry of that teleconference - which was mailed and emailed to White - states in part:

The Court ordered Mr. White to: (1) supplement his Rule 26 disclosure by providing a copy and description of all relevant documents required by Rule 26 to Ms. Baggott; (2) supplement his Rule 26 disclosure by providing the address and telephone number, if known, of Rick Black and Mike Willur; (3) supplement his Rule 26 disclosure by providing additional information explaining what information Mike Willur has about the claims in Mr. White's lawsuit and what Mr. White expects Mr. Willur to testify about; and (4) provide complete responses to Defendant's initial interrogatories and requests for production and provide all documents related to his responses to the interrogatories and requests for production. The deadline for Mr. White to complete the tasks above is May 8, 2015. Mr. White should mail his responses and all relevant documents to Ms. Baggott in a manner that can be confirmed (i.e. tracking). Mr. White should also maintain a copy of what he sends to Ms. Baggott. Mr. White confirmed his understanding that he must comply with the Court's Order and that failure to do so may result in dismissal of his case.

Id. White did not provide his responses by May 8 as ordered by the Court. As of the date of this Order, White has not complied with the Court's order.

After receiving no response from White regarding Midwest's Notice of Deposition, Midwest emailed White on May 1 and asked him to supply his availability. [Doc. 31-4]. White did not respond, and on May 4, Midwest emailed White again regarding his availability. [Doc. 31-5]. White never responded. On May 6, Midwest filed an amended notice of deposition, scheduled for May 27. White did not respond, and no such deposition occurred.

On May 20, Midwest filed this Motion to Dismiss. Midwest mailed and emailed a copy of the Motion to White at the home address and email address he provided to the Court and Midwest. The deadline for White ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.