Alexander v. Private Protective Services, Inc.

Background

Jeriel Alexander, proceeding without a lawyer, filed a motion asking to decline magistrate-judge jurisdiction. The case had been referred to Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron by orders from District Judge J. Paul Oetken. The first referral covered general pretrial matters, and an amended referral also included preparing reports and recommendations on motions that could resolve the case.

Alexander argued that Judge Aaron lacked authority because Alexander had not consented to a magistrate judge. The court rejected that argument. It explained that federal law allows a district judge to assign a magistrate judge to handle specified pretrial matters and prepare recommendations on dispositive motions without the parties’ consent.

Compliance and sanctions

Private Protective Services had previously asked to dismiss Alexander’s remaining claims under Rules 37 and/or 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because of his failure to comply with court orders. The court had denied that request without prejudice and ordered Alexander to produce text messages with “Mr. John,” identified in the order as John Tejeda of Private Protective Services. The court also required Alexander either to pay a previously awarded $16,760 in attorneys’ fees or submit a sworn declaration supported by information showing that he could not pay.

Alexander did not produce the text messages by the ordered deadline. At a later deposition, he testified that the messages were saved in his iCloud account but that he could not access the account because his aunt had the password. Alexander submitted a declaration saying he was a full-time college student and could not pay the attorneys’ fees, but the declaration did not include factual support or documents about his finances.

The court then ordered Alexander to provide tax returns and bank-account statements for review by the court and to provide contact information for his aunt so she could potentially testify about access to the iCloud account. Alexander said he had not filed tax returns and referred to bank statements. He provided the requested information about his aunt but disputed that she had relevant information. The court concluded that he had arguably complied with the March 6 order and therefore would not recommend dismissal of the case at that time.

Ruling

The court denied Alexander’s motion challenging magistrate-judge jurisdiction. It found that his continued failure to produce the text messages justified a preclusion order, which is an order preventing a party from using particular evidence. Alexander was precluded from using any text messages with John Tejeda in prosecuting the case or opposing any defense motion that could resolve the case. The order clarified that Private Protective Services could still use those messages in its defense.

The court stated that discovery had ended and that the case was ready for resolution by a motion that could dispose of the case or by trial. It ordered Private Protective Services to file either a summary-judgment motion or a letter stating that it would not file one by April 7, 2023. The court deferred any recommendation about payment of the attorneys’ fee award and directed the Clerk to seal the bank records containing Alexander’s personal banking information.

Disposition

The motion to decline magistrate-judge jurisdiction was denied. The court imposed the evidence-related preclusion sanction, did not recommend dismissal at that time, deferred the fee-payment recommendation, and ordered the specified bank records sealed.