Peet v. Sidney

Background

John E. Peet sued, alleging that defendants violated 42 U.S.C. § 1982, a federal law concerning certain property and housing rights. The remaining claims were a claim for money damages and injunctive relief against Mark Jones and Sue Morfitt, and a claim for injunctive relief against Debbie Goettel and Michelle Luna. Peet alleged that he was harassed, subjected to an unwarranted criminal investigation, and unlawfully removed from his lease while living at the New Orleans Court Apartments.

The court’s scheduling order set September 1, 2019, as the deadline for fact discovery. Peet filed a motion to compel additional discovery from the City Defendants and the New Orleans Defendants. He also filed a motion alleging witness tampering and fabricated documents, which the court treated as a request for sanctions. The New Orleans Defendants separately moved for a limited extension of the fact-discovery deadline so they could obtain records requested from the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Minnesota Department of Human Rights.

Motion to Compel

The court denied Peet’s motion to compel. The City Defendants said they had produced Peet’s entire housing file and searched for other responsive documents. The New Orleans Defendants said they had produced the responsive documents in their possession and would provide any additional responsive documents later discovered or obtained.

Applying the discovery rules, the court concluded that it could not compel production of documents that did not exist. The court found that Peet had only speculated that the defendants were being untruthful. It nevertheless stated that any responsive documents discovered in the future should be provided promptly and that the defendants should timely respond to Peet’s requests for admissions and interrogatories.

Motion for Sanctions

The court denied Peet’s motion for sanctions regarding alleged witness tampering and fabricated documents. As to witness tampering, the court found that Peet had not identified the witnesses, stated where or when threats allegedly occurred, or provided supporting evidence such as affidavits or emails. Sue Morfitt submitted a sworn declaration denying that she asked any witness to testify falsely.

As to the alleged fabricated document, Peet focused on a January 18, 2012 letter titled “LEASE VIOLATION.” The court found that Peet had only speculated that the letter was fabricated or altered. The court also stated that any argument about whether the conduct described in the letter actually violated the lease was more appropriate for summary judgment or trial, rather than a motion for sanctions based on discovery misconduct.

Extension of Discovery

The court granted the New Orleans Court Defendants’ motion for a limited-purpose extension of the fact-discovery deadline. Under the scheduling rules, an existing deadline may be changed upon a showing of good cause, and the court found that the New Orleans Defendants had acted diligently. They reviewed their files, requested records from both agencies, sought an informal conference, and then promptly filed a formal motion after learning that the agencies could not say when they would respond.

The court also found that Peet would not be prejudiced because the requested records might assist him in pursuing his claims. The extension would not affect other deadlines in the scheduling order. The New Orleans Defendants were ordered to provide Peet all responsive documents received from the two agencies within 10 days after receiving them.

Disposition

The order denied Peet’s motion to compel, denied Peet’s motion for sanctions regarding witness tampering and fraudulent documents, and granted the New Orleans Court Defendants’ motion for a limited-purpose extension of the fact-discovery deadline. Prior consistent orders remained in force.