Bailey v. First Transit Inc.

Background

Jeffrey L. Bailey and Marlon E. Carter, proceeding without lawyers, brought this case against First Transit Inc. and other defendants. The plaintiffs previously litigated a related case involving similar allegations. In the present case, after earlier motions to dismiss, the plaintiffs’ claim under the National Transit Systems Security Act against First Transit was the only surviving claim.

The order addressed four motions: First Transit’s motion for a protective order; the plaintiffs’ motion for a protective order; the plaintiffs’ motion to compel First Transit to answer the complaint accurately and in good faith; and the plaintiffs’ request to stream pretrial and trial proceedings through social media, news, and radio platforms.

Meet-and-confer requirement

The court reminded the plaintiffs that representing themselves did not excuse them from following federal rules, local rules, and court orders. Before filing a discovery motion, parties generally must meet and confer—that is, meaningfully discuss the dispute in good faith to try to resolve it without court action.

The court found that the plaintiffs did not provide enough information about their proposed protective order and did not properly meet and confer with First Transit before filing their motion. The court did not deny that motion solely on this basis, but warned that future discovery motions could be summarily denied and could lead to other remedies or sanctions if the plaintiffs failed to meet and confer properly.

First Transit’s protective-order motion

The court granted First Transit’s motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). First Transit sought an order to help keep confidential documents produced during discovery confidential. The court found good cause for entering the order and stated that it would help facilitate discovery of confidential information.

The protective order was to include court modifications. It would not give either party unilateral authority to make final confidentiality decisions. The parties were directed to use the order’s procedures for initial confidentiality designations and challenges, as well as Local Rule 5.6 when filing documents under seal.

Plaintiffs’ protective-order motion

The plaintiffs sought to bar discovery involving medical records, medical and psychological examinations, blood draws and injections, DNA tissue, financial information, electronic devices, and depositions of family members. The court denied this motion on the merits.

The court explained that discovery may cover nonprivileged information relevant to a claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case. The plaintiffs sought damages for matters including mental anguish, pain and suffering, harm to relationships, loss of insurance, back pay, and punitive damages. The court therefore found that information about their mental health and finances could be relevant to damages. It also found that family members’ knowledge could be relevant because the plaintiffs had submitted statements from their spouses concerning their mental and emotional damages claims in a related administrative hearing. The court declined to categorically bar relevant and proportional discovery located on the plaintiffs’ electronic devices.

The court also noted that the plaintiffs had not identified specific discovery requests and had not shown that the categories of information they sought to bar were irrelevant or that good cause existed for a protective order.

Motion to compel

The plaintiffs argued that First Transit’s answer contained inaccurate, incomplete, and bad-faith responses. They asked the court to require a proper answer, pause the pretrial scheduling order, or alternatively enter a default judgment.

The court denied the motion in all respects. It explained that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(b), rather than the rule cited by the plaintiffs, governs how a defendant responds to allegations. After reviewing the pleadings, the court found that First Transit had fairly and adequately responded to the allegations. The plaintiffs’ disagreement with those responses did not make the answer inadequate; disputed facts could be addressed through discovery and litigation.

The court also denied First Transit’s request for $1,000 in attorneys’ fees and costs related to this motion. It warned the plaintiffs that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 requires court filings to have a proper purpose, legal and factual support, and properly supported denials, and that violations could result in sanctions in the future.

Request to stream proceedings

The court denied the plaintiffs’ request to audio- and video-stream pretrial and trial proceedings. The state-court rules the plaintiffs relied on did not apply because this was a federal case. The court noted that a federal audio-streaming pilot program was in its early stages, but found that this case did not meet the program’s requirements. The court stated that any recording or streaming of future proceedings was strictly prohibited.

The court also denied First Transit’s separate request for $1,000 for defending the streaming motion, while again warning that future frivolous motion practice could result in fees under Rule 11.

Disposition

The court granted First Transit’s motion for a protective order. It denied the plaintiffs’ motion for a protective order, motion to compel First Transit to answer the complaint properly, and motion to allow audio and visual streaming. It denied both of First Transit’s requests for $1,000 in fees and costs. The order stated that prior consistent orders remained in effect and warned that failure to comply could result in remedies including costs, fines, attorneys’ fees, limits on evidence, striking pleadings, dismissal with prejudice, or default judgment.