Sultana v. Endeavor Air

Background

Marc Saeed Sultana sued his former employer, Endeavor Air, asserting employment-discrimination claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, as well as a wrongful-termination retaliation claim. Sultana represented himself.

The court had extended Sultana’s deadlines for initial disclosures and discovery responses. Endeavor Air later moved to compel discovery, asking the court to require Sultana to provide initial disclosures, supplement answers to specified interrogatories and document requests, sign authorizations, produce relevant documents, and pay its reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.

Failure to Oppose the Motion on Time

Sultana did not timely file and serve the memorandum and supporting materials required to oppose the motion. He sent several emails asking for more time, but the court had repeatedly told him that requests for extensions and other relief had to be filed formally on the docket and that the court would not consider ex parte emails. Sultana eventually filed a late response, but the court found that it did not substantively address the motion and declined to consider it as a timely opposition.

Because of Sultana’s status as a self-represented litigant, the court considered the motion on its merits rather than treating it as unopposed.

Discovery Ruling

The court reviewed Sultana’s answers to Interrogatory Nos. 1, 2, 5, 10, 11, 12, and 13 and his responses to Requests for Production Nos. 8, 10, 14, 15, 16, 18, and 20. It found many responses nonresponsive or incomplete. The court also found that Sultana had not justified his general objections and had not substantively responded to Endeavor Air’s efforts to resolve the deficiencies.

The court concluded that the requested discovery was relevant, proportional to the needs of the case, and not unduly burdensome. It therefore ordered Sultana to answer the specified interrogatories fully, provide full responses to the specified document requests, and execute and return the corresponding authorizations. The court also stated that Sultana was required to provide his overdue initial disclosures, including a computation of each category of damages and the supporting, nonprivileged materials required by Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(iii).

The court granted Sultana 21 days from the date of the order to provide the required information rather than the seven days requested by Endeavor Air. It denied the motion to the extent Endeavor Air sought a seven-day deadline. Endeavor Air received 60 days after Sultana’s additional production to conduct related additional discovery, including reconvening his deposition, and 30 days after that discovery to file related non-dispositive motions.

Fees and Sanction

The court did not award the attorney’s fees and costs Endeavor Air requested under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(5). Because the motion was granted in part and denied in part, such expenses were permitted but not required, and the court found that an award would be unjust under the circumstances.

The court instead imposed a $350 sanction for Sultana’s failure to make mandatory initial disclosures and his failure to timely file and serve a responsive memorandum. The order required payment to Endeavor Air within 60 days.

Disposition

The court ordered that Endeavor Air’s Motion to Compel Discovery, ECF No. 43, was GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The court warned that continued failure to comply with discovery obligations or court orders could lead to additional sanctions, including dismissal of the case or default judgment.