United States v. Hughes

Background

Timberly E. Hughes, representing herself, filed several documents on September 4, 2020. The order addressed docket entries 68 through 74. The court admonished Hughes not to place motions requiring an opposing party’s response and court action behind other materials, such as deposition notices.

Docket Entry 68

Docket entry 68 included a motion to compel discovery and a motion to strike. The court denied the motion to compel without prejudice because Hughes had not followed the meet-and-confer and joint-letter requirements in section E of the court’s Civil Standing Orders.

The motion to strike sought removal of duplicate or impertinent pages from the United States’ initial disclosures and material concerning alleged fraud. The court noted that the United States’ complaint did not allege fraud and understood the request as also directed at the initial disclosures. The court denied the motion to strike without prejudice because Hughes had not followed the court’s procedures for raising a discovery dispute. The court also stated that, absent an unusual showing of prejudice, overly broad initial disclosures generally would not require court intervention.

Docket Entry 69

Docket entry 69 included a motion for sanctions under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a motion to compel discovery, and a motion to strike attachments to material the United States had filed in support of an earlier discovery motion.

The court denied the sanctions motion without prejudice for two reasons. First, Hughes had not served it on the opposing party and allowed the required opportunity to correct the challenged conduct before filing it with the court. Second, the motion concerned issues going to the merits of the case, which the court said were better addressed through a later motion for summary judgment or at trial. The court stated that Hughes could renew the sanctions motion if she ultimately prevailed and still believed sanctions were warranted.

The court denied the docket-entry-69 motion to compel without prejudice for the same failure to follow the required discovery-dispute procedures. It denied the motion to strike the attachments. The court said Hughes cited no authority supporting the requested relief and had not explained how the United States’ disclosure of pending discovery responses to the court created additional prejudice. It instructed that future motions should identify both the legal basis for the requested relief and the practical effect of granting it.

Other Filings and Disposition

The court disregarded docket entries 70, 71, and 72 because they were certificates of service with no other documents attached. It determined that docket entries 73 and 74, although labeled as notices of appearance in the electronic filing system, were subpoenas requiring the Clerk’s signatures. The court said the Clerk would address those subpoenas in due course.

The order concluded that all motions filed in docket entries 68 and 69 were denied. Judge Joseph Spero also encouraged Hughes to contact the Federal Pro Bono Project’s Pro Se Help Desk, which provides basic assistance but not legal representation.