Fecteau v. The City of Mount Vernon

Background

Since November 11, 2024, Plaintiff Matthew J. Fecteau, who is proceeding without a lawyer, filed numerous motions concerning discovery disputes and procedural issues. The court stated that the filings showed Fecteau had not meaningfully met and conferred with opposing counsel before submitting most of his requests, as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(1) and Section 2.A of the court’s individual rules. According to the court, this made it harder for opposing counsel to respond, burdened the court with issues that might have been resolved, and unnecessarily delayed the litigation.

Procedures Ordered

The court established a process for bringing discovery disputes to its attention. If Fecteau wants to raise a dispute, he must first send the opposing party a letter describing the dispute. The letter may not exceed three single-spaced pages. If the parties cannot resolve the issue within five days after the opposing party receives the letter, the opposing party must file a joint letter with the court summarizing the dispute, stating the parties’ positions, and attaching Fecteau’s letter.

If defendants want to raise a discovery dispute, they must first send Fecteau a letter describing it, also limited to three single-spaced pages. If the parties cannot resolve the dispute within five days after Fecteau receives the letter, Fecteau must respond by letter, also limited to three single-spaced pages. After receiving the response, defendants must file a joint letter with the court summarizing the dispute and attaching both letters.

The order also requires all communications between the parties and with the court to be courteous and respectful and prohibits language that could be understood as abusive or threatening. It further states that the parties may not seek judicial notice—asking the court to accept a fact without ordinary proof—outside the scope of a motion.

Ruling and Effect

Judge Judith C. McCarthy ordered the parties to follow these procedures to promote the just and speedy progress of the litigation and prevent unresolved issues from accumulating. The order states that failure to comply may result in waiver of legal rights and privileges or sanctions. It also says the limitations in the order and in scheduling orders must be strictly observed and may not be changed without the court’s prior approval. The order does not state that a sanction was imposed or rule on the underlying claims.