Jeanty v. Precision Pipeline Solutions LLC
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:18-cv-07721
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Jeanty v. Precision Pipeline Solutions LLC, Judge Briccetti addressed missed discovery obligations, ordered a status letter, warned of sanctions, and denied permission to appeal without paying fees.
The order directly affected Kervin Jeanty, who was representing himself, by warning him of possible sanctions and denying permission to appeal without paying fees. It also required Precision Pipeline Solutions LLC to report whether it still wanted a discovery conference.
What happened
In Jeanty v. Precision Pipeline Solutions LLC, the defendant asked for a conference before filing a discovery motion because the plaintiff had not provided required disclosures or answered document requests and written questions. The plaintiff was representing himself without a lawyer.
The court gave the plaintiff several extended deadlines to respond and warned that continued noncompliance could lead to sanctions, including dismissal. The plaintiff did not respond to the defendant’s letter, although he later filed responses to written questions, document requests, and requests to admit.
Judge Briccetti ordered the defendant to report by January 29, 2020, whether it still wanted the discovery conference. The court also warned that continued improper or delayed conduct would result in sanctions, certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith, and denied the plaintiff permission to appeal without paying the required fees.
The detailed version
- Jeanty v. Precision Pipeline Solutions LLC · No. 7:18-cv-07721
- Vincent Briccetti
- Jan. 24, 2020
Background
The defendant filed a letter-motion seeking a conference before filing a discovery motion. It based the request on the plaintiff’s failure to provide initial disclosures and failure to respond to document requests and interrogatories, which are written questions used in discovery. The plaintiff was representing himself.
The court ordered the plaintiff to respond to the letter-motion by December 3, 2019. After he missed that deadline, the court extended the deadline to December 26 and warned, in bold and underlined language, that noncompliance could result in sanctions, including dismissal. When the plaintiff again failed to respond, the court extended the deadline to January 21, 2020, and repeated the warning.
Plaintiff’s Later Filings
The plaintiff still had not responded to the defendant’s letter-motion as of the order. He had, however, filed two documents dated January 21, 2020: one titled “Responses to Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents,” and another titled “Response to Requests for Admission.”
Order
The court ordered the defendant to file a letter by January 29, 2020, stating whether, in light of the plaintiff’s later submissions, it still sought a pre-motion discovery conference concerning the relief requested in its November 19, 2019 letter-motion.
The court stated that the plaintiff was a sophisticated self-represented litigant because he had represented himself in multiple other lawsuits in the same district. It therefore stated that the usual special consideration given to people without lawyers might be reduced. The court warned that continued delayed or improper conduct would result in sanctions.
Judge Vincent L. Briccetti also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith. The court therefore denied the plaintiff permission to appeal without paying the required filing fees. The order did not decide the underlying claims or dismiss the case.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.