Jennette v. United Parcel Service, Inc
- Ho
- 1:22-cv-10783
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
Jennette v. United Parcel Service: Judge Ho ordered a response to Jennette’s discovery letter but did not decide the requested relief.
Khjim Jennette and United Parcel Service, Inc.; the order also concerns discovery involving UPS Capital Insurance Agency, UPS Capital, UPS Parcel Pro, and other identified UPS-related entities and witnesses.
What happened
In Khjim Jennette v. United Parcel Service, Inc., Jennette’s lawyer asked the court to address the company’s alleged failure to provide documents and information required by an earlier order. The letter concerned companies connected to UPS and accommodation requests related to COVID-19 vaccine policies.
Jennette asked the court to require additional information and documents, set deposition dates, help schedule a settlement conference, and impose sanctions or issue a warning. The opinion text says the defendant had not responded to several requests to discuss these disputes.
Judge Dale E. Ho ordered the defendant to file a response of no more than three pages by June 18, 2024, and requested that the Clerk close docket entry 59. The court did not rule on Jennette’s requests to compel discovery, schedule depositions, arrange a settlement conference, or impose sanctions.
The detailed version
- Jennette v. United Parcel Service, Inc · No. 1:22-cv-10783
- Ho
- June 14, 2024
Background
Plaintiff Khjim Jennette, through counsel, submitted a letter requesting a conference about anticipated discovery motions. Jennette alleged that Defendant United Parcel Service, Inc. had not complied with the court’s May 2, 2024 order. That earlier order required production of documents concerning current or former employees’ requests to be exempted from COVID-19 vaccine policies involving UPS Capital Insurance Agency, UPS Capital, and UPS Parcel Pro. It also required an affidavit explaining the relationships among United Parcel Service, Inc., UPS of America, UPS Capital Insurance Agency, UPS Capital, and UPS Parcel Pro, and confirming Jennette’s actual former employer.
Jennette’s counsel stated that the defendant provided a supplemental response and later another affidavit, but contended that the materials still did not identify all requested relationships or include all relevant communications. The letter also described unsuccessful efforts to obtain responses about depositions and to schedule a settlement conference before Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn.
Requests
Jennette asked the court to:
- Require the defendant to comply with the May 2 order by providing a further affidavit and documents concerning accommodation requests and related communications; - Order deposition dates for the defendant and eight identified fact witnesses; - Address scheduling of the settlement conference; and - Impose sanctions, or at least warn the defendant of possible sanctions, for alleged violations of the May 2 order and the judge’s individual rules governing discovery conferences.
Court’s Action
The court did not decide whether the defendant had violated the May 2 order, whether further discovery should be compelled, whether depositions should be ordered, whether sanctions were warranted, or how the settlement conference should be scheduled. Instead, Judge Dale E. Ho ordered the defendants to file a response letter of no more than three pages by June 18, 2024. The order also requested that the Clerk of Court close docket entry 59.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.