Murray v. Walmart Stores Inc.

• Decision Date: 06 December 2019
• Docket Number: CIVIL NO. 2:15-CV-00484-DBH
• Parties: DAVID E. MURRAY, PLAINTIFF v. WALMART STORES INC., ET AL., DEFENDANT
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Maine

DAVID E. MURRAY, PLAINTIFF v. WALMART STORES INC., ET AL., DEFENDANT

CIVIL NO. 2:15-CV-00484-DBH

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MAINE

December 6, 2019

DECISION AND ORDER ON CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND THE PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTION TO ORDER ON MOTION TO SEAL

This is an employment discrimination case. The plaintiff-employee, David E. Murray (Murray), alleges that his employer (the defendants whom I refer to collectively as Walmart) retaliated against him for engaging in protected activity and discriminated against him on account of his age and disability. He seeks relief under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA), the Maine Whistleblowers' Protection Act (MWPA), and the Maine Human Rights Act (MHRA). He also demands unpaid wages and benefits under Maine labor law.¹ Walmart filed a motion for summary judgment on all claims; Murray requested partial summary judgment on Walmart's failure-to-mitigate defense. I GRANT Walmart's motion for summary judgment. That ruling MOOTS Murray's motion for partial summary judgment.

Murray also objects to the Magistrate Judge's order granting in part and denying in part Walmart's motion to seal its summary judgment papers and exhibits. I AFFIRM the Magistrate Judge's order because it is not clearly erroneous or contrary to law.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

This case has been pending over four years. Murray cycled through two sets of lawyers before representing himself, requested and received numerous extensions of time, and attempted multiple amendments to his complaint. In August 2015, while Murray was still a Walmart employee, his lawyers filed this case in Maine Superior Court (Cumberland County). See Complaint (ECF No. 1-1). Walmart removed it to this court on November 24, 2015, asserting both federal question and diversity of citizenship jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332; Defs.' Notice of Removal (ECF No. 1). Walmart then answered the complaint and discovery began. Defs.' Ans. (ECF No. 11); Scheduling Order (ECF No. 12).

In October 2016, Walmart fired Murray, prompting him to file an amended complaint the following month that incorporated allegations related to his termination. Report of Hearing and Order (ECF No. 33); First Am. Compl. (ECF No. 36). As discovery continued, Murray's lawyers terminated their representation in May 2017, citing "professional considerations" under Maine Rule of Professional Conduct 1.16. Pl.'s Counsels' Mot. for Leave to Withdraw (ECF No. 71). Murray missed a court-ordered deadline for retaining new counsel, but he requested an extension and explained that because of his medical conditions, "there was no way that [he] could represent [him]self Pro Se." Pl.'s Mot. to Extend Time (ECF No. 74). He successfully retained a new lawyer in early July 2017. Notice of Appearance on Behalf of Murray (ECF No. 79).

Murray's new lawyer obtained multiple deadline extensions, one of them because the parties were engaged in settlement negotiations that they anticipated completing within 30 days. Joint Mot. to Stay Proceedings (ECF No. 87). A month and a half later, Murray's lawyer reported that the parties had been unable to reach a settlement. On November 29, 2017, he requested to withdraw his representation because of "[a]n irretrievable breakdown in the attorney-client relationship." Mot. to Withdraw (ECF No. 91); Order re: Status Conference (ECF No. 92). A Magistrate Judge gave Murray 30 days to find successor counsel or choose to proceed pro se. Order Granting Mot. to Withdraw (ECF No. 93). But Murray requested additional time, explaining that he was having difficulty retaining new counsel and attaching letters from his doctors in support of his claim that his medical conditions precluded him from representing himself. Pl.'s Mot. to Extend All Deadlines (ECF No. 94). On February 7, 2018, the Magistrate Judge—noting that the case by then was in its third year, following "numerous extensions," and it was "thus unsurprising that he has had difficulty retaining new counsel"—granted Murray a further extension, allowing him a total of 90 days to find a new lawyer after his prior counsel's withdrawal. Order Granting in Part & Denying in Part Mot. to Amend (ECF No. 100). As it turned out, Murray did not secure new counsel.

Next, proceeding pro se, Murray requested a settlement conference. Letter Requesting Settlement Conf. (ECF No. 101). The parties met with a Magistrate Judge for two days, followed by two additional meetings by phone and one more in person. See Minute Entries re: Confs. (ECF Nos. 106, 107, 109, 112 & 117). They were unable to reach a settlement. At a conference in July 2018, a different Magistrate Judge denied Murray's request for additional time to secure a lawyer, and he set remaining pretrial deadlines. Order re: Non-Final Pretrial Conf. (ECF No. 123).

With the failure of the settlement conferences, the parties resumed discovery and motion practice. Denying an additional request from Murray for another stay while he continued to look for counsel, a Magistrate Judge noted that, as of August 24, 2018, "the parties jointly or separately requested and were granted 22 extensions. Six of those extensions stemmed from Murray's search for successor counsel. . . . This court has made every reasonable attempt to accommodate Murray's efforts to find first one successor counsel and then another." Mem. Dec. & Order on Mots. at 2, 5 (ECF No. 129). I denied Murray's objection to the Magistrate Judge's order, explaining that the Court had already been "very accommodating in allowing numerous extensions of deadlines" and that Murray had failed to give any indication that his condition was "likely to improve in the foreseeable future" or that he had "a plan for engaging counsel following his lack of success so far." Order Denying Obj. to Mem. Dec. & Order at 2 (ECF No. 155).

Murray filed a second amended complaint on September 26, 2018, adding factual allegations and state law claims for unpaid salary, paid time off, and executive compensation benefits. See Second Am. Compl. (ECF No. 159). On the same day, he moved to file a third amended complaint. Mot. to Amend Am. Compl. (ECF No. 160). The Magistrate Judge denied that motion, concluding that Murray did not demonstrate good cause for his substantial delay in seeking to amend his complaint further and, to the extent he did have good cause, the claim he proposed was futile. Mem. Dec. & Order on Mot. to Amend (ECF No. 181).

Walmart filed its motion for summary judgment and supporting statement of material facts on April 29, 2019. Redacted Mot. for Summ. J. (ECF No. 196); Redacted Stmt. of Facts (ECF No. 197). Murray requested additional time for filing his response to the summary judgment motion, which the Magistrate Judge granted. Pl.'s Mot. to Extend Time (ECF No. 202); Order Granting Mot. to Extend Time (ECF No. 207). A day later, Murray filed a motion to stay all deadlines and, three weeks after that, submitted another motion for an extension. Mot. to Stay (ECF No. 211); Mot. to Extend Time (ECF No. 215). The Magistrate Judge ultimately granted Murray a further extension on July 12, 2019. Order Granting Mot. to Extend Time (ECF No. 222). But the day before, Murray filed a motion for partial summary judgment on Walmart's affirmative defense of failure to mitigate damages. Mot. for Partial Summ. J. & associated filings (ECF Nos. 224-27). Then, on the same day that the Magistrate Judge granted his motion for an extension, Murray filed a partial response to Walmart's statement of facts along with a statement of additional facts. Response to Stmt. of Facts with Stmt. of Add'l Facts (ECF No. 228). Murray's response addressed Walmart's facts numbered 1 through 173 but did not address facts 174 through 274. See id. Since he submitted his filings the day before and the same day as the Magistrate Judge granted his request for more time, the Magistrate Judge gave Murray the option of withdrawing those filings and submitting his responses by the newly extended deadline or foregoing the extended deadline and standing by his existing responses. Order re: Resp. to Mot. for Summ. J. (ECF No. 231). Murray chose to stick with what he had already filed. Pl.'s Status Report at 4-5 (ECF No. 232).

The parties proceeded to submit replies and responses to the cross motions for summary judgment and accompanying statements of facts, although Murray has never filed a brief in opposition to Walmart's motion for summary judgment (despite submitting a partial response to Walmart's Statement of Material Facts) or a response to Walmart's facts numbered 174 through 274. See Defs.' Reply in Support of Mot. for Summ. J. (ECF No. 233); Defs.' Reply to Stmt. of Add'l Facts (ECF No. 234); Defs.' Opp. to Mot. for Partial Summ. J. & accompanying exhibits (ECF Nos. 235 & 236); Pl.'s Reply in Support of Mot. for Partial Summ. J. (ECF No. 239); Pl.'s Response to Defs.' Stmt. of Facts & accompanying exhibits (ECF Nos. 240 & 241). The cross-motions for summary judgment are now fully briefed and ready for decision.²

UNDISPUTED FACTS

Here is a broad outline of the facts in this case. I provide further details in the appropriate sections of the legal analysis. When the facts are properly disputed, I take Murray's version since he is the nonmoving party. See Santiago-Ramos v. Centennial P.R. Wireless Corp., 217 F.3d 46, 50 (1st Cir. 2000).

Murray began working for Walmart in October 1993. Defs.' Stmt. of Material Facts (SMF) ¶ 1 (ECF No. 198-2); Pl.'s Resp. to SMF (Resp.) ¶ 1 (ECF No. 228). From February 2006 until he began a leave of absence in January 2015, Murray was a market manager, charged with overseeing eight to ten stores (the exact number changed as Walmart conducted internal realignments on occasion) in Central Maine and New Hampshire. Pl.'s Stmt. of Add'l Material Facts (SAMF) ¶ 276 (ECF No. 228). Murray was responsible for as many as 3,300 Walmart employees and more than $500 million...