Jeanty v. Precision Pipeline Solutions LLC

Background

This order addressed two letter-motions filed by Precision Pipeline Solutions LLC’s counsel on April 6, 2020. The first requested sanctions because Kervin Jeanty had not served or filed the initial disclosures required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1) and the court’s March 9, 2020, order. The second was a required pre-motion letter notifying the court that the defendant intended to seek summary judgment.

Jeanty’s initial disclosures were originally due on September 19, 2019. After the defendant raised the issue in November 2019, the court ordered Jeanty to respond and warned that his self-represented status did not excuse compliance with the discovery rules and court orders. The court granted two extensions for him to respond, and both orders warned that noncompliance could result in sanctions. Jeanty later filed two discovery documents but still did not respond to the defendant’s letter.

At the March 9, 2020, status conference, the court again provided Jeanty with its guide for self-represented litigants and directed him to the section explaining initial disclosures. The court ordered him to file the disclosures by March 23, 2020, stated that no extensions would be granted, and warned that failure to comply could result in sanctions. Jeanty still had not filed them by April 6, 2020.

Rulings

The court granted the defendant’s request for sanctions. Under Rule 37(c)(1), a party who fails to make required disclosures generally cannot use the undisclosed information or witnesses as evidence in a motion, hearing, or trial unless the failure was substantially justified or harmless. The court ordered that, in any future motion, hearing, or trial, Jeanty could rely only on information and witnesses disclosed to or identified to the defendant by April 6, 2020. The court stated that it would disregard all other evidence.

The court warned that continued disregard of its orders could lead to additional sanctions, potentially including dismissal of the action for failure to prosecute or comply with court orders. The order did not dismiss the action.

Regarding the defendant’s pre-motion letter, the court ordered that Jeanty’s response, if any, was due April 17, 2020. It also ordered that the April 24, 2020, conference would proceed and would serve as the pre-motion conference. The order directed defense counsel to mail a copy to Jeanty and file proof of mailing, and to file any response from Jeanty that had not yet been docketed.

The court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied self-represented fee-waiver status for purposes of an appeal. The Clerk was directed to terminate the two letter-motions.