Beaman v. United States
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:20-cv-00309
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Beaman v. United States, Judge Broderick ordered a conference about discovery noncompliance and whether Shelton Beaman intends to continue prosecuting the case.
Shelton Beaman and the United States of America, who were ordered to attend the telephone conference; Beaman was specifically required to explain his lack of participation in discovery and whether he intended to continue the claim.
What happened
In Beaman v. United States, the Government reported that Shelton Beaman had not provided required discovery responses despite repeated inquiries and a previous extension of the discovery deadline. The court had warned that failing to pursue the case could lead to dismissal.
The Government asked the court to require Beaman to participate in discovery, order him to explain why the case should not be dismissed, or schedule a conference. The opinion also says Beaman filed a declaration supporting a summary-judgment motion even though no such motion was pending.
Judge Vernon S. Broderick ordered the parties to attend a telephone conference on February 3, 2021. Beaman was directed to explain why he had not participated in discovery and whether he intended to continue prosecuting his claim; the order did not dismiss the case or compel discovery.
The detailed version
- Beaman v. United States · No. 1:20-cv-00309
- Vernon Broderick
- Jan. 27, 2021
Background
The Government told the court that Shelton Beaman had not participated in discovery. Discovery is the pretrial exchange of information and documents between opposing parties. The Government said it served initial disclosures on July 29, 2020, and interrogatories and document requests on August 7, 2020, but Beaman had not provided his disclosures or responses.
The court had previously extended the fact-discovery deadline to January 29, 2021, and warned Beaman that failing to participate in discovery or otherwise pursue the case could result in dismissal for failure to prosecute. The Government reported making repeated inquiries by email between August 2020 and January 2021. It also reported that Beaman declined to provide the requested materials or state when he planned to participate in discovery.
The Government further reported that Beaman filed a declaration supporting a motion for summary judgment on December 22, 2020. The Government argued that the filing was premature because no summary-judgment motion was pending and that it did not explain his failure to participate in discovery.
Requested Relief
The Government asked the court to order Beaman to participate in discovery or to require him to show why the claim should not be dismissed under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 37 and 41(b). Rule 41(b) permits dismissal for failure to prosecute in appropriate circumstances. Alternatively, the Government asked for a conference to determine whether Beaman intended to pursue the claim and to establish deadlines for discovery.
Court’s Order
Judge Vernon S. Broderick ordered the parties to appear by telephone on February 3, 2021, at 11:00 a.m. Beaman was directed to be prepared to explain why he had not participated in discovery and whether he intended to prosecute his claim. The order also directed the Clerk of Court to mail a copy to Beaman, who was identified as proceeding without a lawyer.
The order scheduled the conference. It did not dismiss the claim, order Beaman to provide discovery, or decide the merits of the case.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.