Breaux v. Ti-Zack Concrete Inc.

Background

Terry K. Breaux initially proceeded without a lawyer and filed an amended complaint alleging that Ti-Zack Concrete Inc. engaged in discrimination and retaliation based on race, color, national origin, age, and disability. The parties later stipulated to dismissal of four counts, leaving only Count I, alleging discrimination based on race, color, and national origin. The opinion notes that the defendant referred to itself as Ti-Zack Concrete, LLC, but the case remained docketed against Ti-Zack Concrete Inc., and neither party moved to correct the docket.

Breaux’s lawyer, Ryan H. Ahlberg, later moved to withdraw. The court granted that motion and also granted the defendant’s request to extend discovery and other pretrial deadlines. At the February 2, 2026 hearing, the court told Breaux that he had to participate in discovery, including answering questions during his deposition, and warned that refusing to comply could lead to a recommendation that the case be dismissed.

The defendant attempted to take Breaux’s deposition on February 19, 2026. After answering questions for several hours, Breaux refused to continue and left the remote proceeding. The opinion states that defense counsel reminded him of the court’s order before he left. Breaux later sought a protective order, asking for court-supervised discovery and protection from what he described as undue litigation pressure. He did not respond to the defendant’s dismissal motion and did not appear at the April 30 hearing.

Protective-Order Motion

The court denied Breaux’s motion for a protective order. It found that the motion repeated arguments and requests from an earlier letter that the court had already denied, and that Breaux had not shown changed circumstances. The court also found that he had not made the required good-faith effort to meet and confer with defense counsel before filing the motion. Finally, the court concluded that his status as a self-represented litigant did not establish the required good cause for a protective order.

Motion for Involuntary Dismissal

The court recommended granting Ti-Zack Concrete Inc.’s motion for involuntary dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). That rule permits dismissal when a plaintiff fails to prosecute a case or fails to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or a court order.

The court identified several grounds for dismissal. It found that Breaux willfully left his first deposition, refused to answer relevant and appropriate questions at his second deposition despite the court’s warning and order, and obstructed the discovery process. The court also found that he waived any defense to the dismissal motion by failing to respond to it or appear at the hearing, after concluding that he had adequate notice of the motion and hearing.

The court further recommended dismissal with prejudice, meaning the case would be ended and the claim could not be brought again in this action. It described dismissal with prejudice as an extreme sanction and concluded that it was appropriate because of Breaux’s repeated failure to comply with discovery obligations, willful disregard of the court’s order, prior warning, conduct during the deposition, and failure to respond to the motion or attend the hearing.

Disposition and Review

The order portion of the filing denies Breaux’s Motion for Protective Order and Request for Judicial Intervention. The recommendation asks the district court to grant Ti-Zack Concrete Inc.’s Motion for Involuntary Dismissal and dismiss the matter with prejudice. Magistrate Judge Dulce J. Foster signed the filing. The notice states that the report and recommendation is not directly appealable to the Court of Appeals, and that the parties may file written objections within 14 days after being served with it.