Musson v. Jones
| Docket Number | Civil Action 4:22-cv-124 |
| Decision Date | 26 October 2023 |
| Parties | SKYE MUSSON, Plaintiff, v. SHALENA COOK JONES; CHATHAM COUNTY, GEORGIA; and PROSECUTING ATTORNEY'S COUNCIL OF GEORGIA, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Georgia |
This Court does not relish sanctioning attorneys or parties. Nor does it do so lightly. Unfortunately, Defendant Shalena Cook Jones leaves the Court no choice. Cook Jones repeatedly and willfully disregarded her discovery obligations and the Court's Orders even after the Court modified its deadlines to accommodate her. To make matters worse, Cook Jones now provides false information to the Court in her attempt to excuse her misconduct. The only measures sufficient to remedy Cook Jones' pattern of contemptuous disregard are striking her Answers and ordering her to pay Plaintiff's costs, fees, and expenses.
While the Court details the underlying facts below, it summarizes Cook Jones' misconduct at the outset. The Court twice extended its discovery deadlines to afford Cook Jones time to remedy her insufficient responses to basic discovery requests. Despite those extensions, Cook Jones refused to provide a single date during which she could be deposed. Nonetheless, the Court once again accommodated Cook Jones and ordered her deposition to take place after the deposition deadline on a date she selected. Cook Jones then assigned herself as the lead attorney in a trial before the Superior Court of Chatham County that would likely conflict with her deposition. As the conflict between that trial and Cook Jones' deposition became inevitable, Cook Jones remained as lead trial counsel even though two other experienced prosecutors represented the State throughout the trial. Moreover, Cook Jones failed to apprise this Court or the Superior Court of her self-created conflict until the literal eve of her deposition. Cook Jones' last-minute notices were not only tardy but also included false and incomplete information. Ultimately, Cook Jones shunned multiple orders from this Court and refused to attend her deposition on the date she previously proposed due to a conflict she created. To add further insult to injury, in her attempt to explain away her contemptuous conduct, Cook Jones now makes materially false statements.
Cook Jones depicts her failure to appear for her deposition as the result of an “unavoidable conflict” between her responsibilities as Chatham County District Attorney and her obligations as a litigant in this case. This is simply not true. Cook Jones' repeated failures were not caused by tension between her obligations to this Court and the Superior Court, but rather by her disregard of her duties to both courts. Moreover, public officials frequently appear as parties before this Court, and they, like all litigants, must comply with the Court's rules and orders. Indeed, it is specifically incumbent upon those who hold the public's trust, particularly those of us who hold others legally accountable, to maintain fealty to the rule of law in our own affairs. Unfortunately, Cook Jones repeatedly and willfully failed that imperative.
Thus for reasons stated more fully below, the Court OVERRULES Cook Jones' Motion to Set Aside and Objections to Orders Denying Defendant Shalena Cook Jones' Emergency Motions to Reschedule her Deposition and for Reconsideration. (Doc. 89.) Additionally, the Court GRANTS IN PART Plaintiff Skye Musson's Motion for Sanctions Striking Defendant Shalena Cook Jones' Answer and Entering Default Judgment. (Doc. 88.) The Court GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions to the extent that she requests the Court to strike Cook Jones' Answer and enter default against Cook Jones. The Court hereby DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to enter default against Cook Jones on the docket. Additionally, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's request to the extent that she requests that Cook Jones reimburse Plaintiff for all reasonable costs, attorneys fees, and expenses incurred due to Cook Jones' disregard of her discovery obligations and failure to comply with this Court's Orders. However, the Court RESERVES RULING on Plaintiff's request for default judgment.
BACKGROUND[1]
On June 23, 2021, Plaintiff Skye Musson, a former Assistant District Attorney at the Chatham County District Attorney's Office, filed a Charge of Discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission against Chatham County, the District Attorney's office, and the Prosecuting Attorney's Council of Georgia (“PAC”), regarding her failure to be promoted and her termination of employment at the District Attorney's Office. (Doc. 29, p. 12.) Plaintiff then filed this lawsuit in Chatham County Superior Court on April 7, 2022, against PAC, the County, and Cook Jones in her individual and official capacities. (Doc. 1-1.) Defendants then removed the case to this Court, (doc. 1), and Plaintiff thereafter filed her Amended Complaint on August 3, 2022, (doc. 29).
Plaintiff asserts various federal and state law claims based upon Defendants' allegedly discriminatory treatment of her because of her sex and disability during her employment. She alleges all Defendants discriminated and retaliated against her as joint employers in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2, and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. (Doc. 29, pp. 13-18.) She also contends Defendants violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments, (id. at pp. 19-24), and the Georgia Whistleblower Protection Act, O.C.G.A. § 45-1-4, (id. at pp. 24-25). Plaintiff sues Cook Jones in her individual and official capacities and claims Cook Jones managed the Chatham District Attorney's Office, including Plaintiff's “day-to-day case load and activities.” (Id. at pp. 1, 4.) Plaintiff claims Cook Jones was integrally involved in the discrimination and retaliation against her. (Id. at pp. 4-13.)
(Id. at p. 3 (emphasis in original).)
On December 2, 2022, the Court granted the parties' Motion for Extension of Deadlines in Scheduling Order and extended the deadline for depositions of non-expert witnesses to February 15, 2023. (Doc. 55, p. 2.) The Court restated its expectation that the parties would not need an extension of the deadlines and that the deadlines would not be changed without a showing of good cause and Court order. (Id. at p. 1.) On February 8, 2023, the parties filed yet another Motion for Extension of Deadlines in Scheduling Order. (Doc. 62.) The parties explained that the need for an extension was caused, in large part, by Cook Jones' deficient responses to Plaintiff's discovery requests. (Id. at pp. 3-4.) On February 10, 2023, the Court granted the parties' Motion and extended the deadline for non-expert depositions to March 31, 2023. (Doc. 63, p. 2.) Once again, the Court restated that the deadlines would not be extended absent good cause and Court order. (Id. at p. 1.)
On March 17, 2023, Defendants requested yet another amendment of the discovery schedule extending the deadline for non-expert depositions forty-five days to May 15, 2023. (Doc. 69.) Defendants stated that they were “contemplating taking the depositions of several other non-expert witnesses” and contended that “the delay in completion of non-expert witness depositions is attributed to the fact that most non-expert witnesses are practicing attorneys who do not have availability to appear for depositions.” (Id. at pp. 2, 3.) Plaintiff opposed that Motion and suggested that the Defendants other than Cook Jones “simply do not oppose the extension,” emphasizing that those other Defendants “have not articulated a desire to depose any other witnesses to Plaintiff.” (Doc. 75, p. 6.) Additionally, Plaintiff disputed the contention that Cook Jones had diligently been pursuing discovery and explained that Plaintiff's counsel had repeatedly sought dates to depose Cook Jones to no avail. (Id. at pp. 5-6.) Plaintiff attached to her Response a series of email communications that substantiated her contentions that her counsel had repeatedly asked Cook Jones' counsel for dates for Cook Jones' deposition, that Cook Jones' counsel had relayed those requests to Cook Jones, and that Cook Jones had...
To continue reading
Request your trial