Jennette v. United Parcel Service, Inc
- Ho
- 1:22-cv-10783
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Jennette v. United Parcel Service, Judge Ho denied discovery requests and sanctions, ordered remote depositions, and required settlement scheduling.
Khjim Jennette and United Parcel Service, Inc.; the order governs their remaining discovery, depositions, settlement scheduling, and discovery deadline.
What happened
In Jennette v. United Parcel Service, Inc., Khjim Jennette asked the court for a conference about an expected request to compel documents and impose sanctions based on United Parcel Service’s alleged failure to follow an earlier order. United Parcel Service disputed Jennette’s description of the events and asked for remote deposition dates.
The court found that United Parcel Service had provided affidavits explaining the listed UPS entities and had produced accommodation-related information. It denied as moot the request to compel that production. The court ordered the depositions to be conducted remotely, but denied Jennette’s request that it set the dates, directing the parties to agree on dates. It also directed counsel to promptly schedule a settlement conference through Magistrate Judge Netburn’s procedures.
Judge Dale E. Ho denied the request for a conference and denied the motion for sanctions because the alleged conduct did not violate a court order covered by the discovery-sanctions rule. The court reminded the parties that discovery must be completed by August 2, 2024, and said further extensions would not be granted without compelling circumstances and diligent discovery efforts.
The detailed version
- Jennette v. United Parcel Service, Inc · No. 1:22-cv-10783
- Ho
- June 25, 2024
Background
Khjim Jennette filed a letter asking for a conference concerning, among other matters, an anticipated motion to compel discovery and for sanctions. Jennette alleged that United Parcel Service, Inc. had not complied with the court’s May 2, 2024 order. The company disputed Jennette’s descriptions, asserted that it had complied with the court’s orders, and requested remote deposition dates. Jennette later filed another letter responding to the company’s statements.
The court construed Jennette’s letter as seeking three types of relief: an order compelling production of documents and scheduling depositions, sanctions, and action concerning settlement scheduling.
Rulings on discovery
The May 2 order required the company to produce an affidavit explaining the relationship among United Parcel Service, Inc., UPS of America, UPS Capital Insurance Agency, UPS Capital, and UPS Parcel Pro, and to confirm Jennette’s actual former employer. The court found that the company had produced affidavits dated May 17 and June 5, 2024, explaining each listed UPS entity. The court also noted that the company had produced accommodation information from its internal portal, including communications about accommodation requests and decisions on those requests. The court therefore denied as moot Jennette’s request for an order compelling the production at issue.
The court ordered that the depositions be conducted remotely. It relied on the company’s preference for remote depositions and Jennette’s failure to show why in-person depositions were necessary or why remote depositions would prejudice her. The court denied Jennette’s request that it set a deposition schedule and directed the parties to meet and confer in good faith about mutually agreeable dates for counsel and the witnesses.
Sanctions and settlement
Jennette moved for sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37, citing alleged violations of the court’s Individual Rule 4(k)(ii) and delayed email responses. The court explained that sanctions under Rule 37(b) may be imposed for noncompliance with a clearly stated court order requiring specified discovery. It denied the sanctions motion because the alleged conduct did not stem from a violation of a court order.
The court directed all counsel to promptly schedule a settlement conference and follow Magistrate Judge Netburn’s procedures for requesting a virtual conference. It stated that its ruling would not affect the scheduling or location of a settlement conference before Magistrate Judge Netburn.
Additional directive and disposition
The court reminded the parties that all discovery must be completed by August 2, 2024. It stated that, given the case’s procedural history, further extensions would not be granted absent compelling circumstances and diligence in pursuing discovery. Judge Dale E. Ho denied Jennette’s request for a conference, denied as moot the request to compel the production at issue, denied the request to set a deposition schedule, ordered remote depositions, and denied the motion for sanctions.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.