Pistolis v. Ameren
| Docket Number | 3:19 -CV-001185 -MAB,3:19-CV-001182-MAB |
| Decision Date | 15 June 2022 |
| Parties | LOUIS PISTOLIS, Plaintiff, v. AMEREN, Defendant. LOUIS PISTOLIS, Plaintiff, v. J.F. ELECTRIC Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Illinois |
This matter is before the Court on a series of motions. The first is Defendants J.F. Electric and Ameren's Motion for Protective Order regarding Plaintiff's Fourth and Fifth Request for Admissions and Fourth Request for Production to J.F. Electric, which was filed on April 21, 2022 (Doc. 111). The second is Plaintiff's Motion to Deny Defendants' Protective Order (Doc. 112), filed on April 25, 2022, which the Court interprets as a response to Defendants' April 21st motion. The third is Plaintiff's Motion for Clarification, filed on April 27, 2022 (Doc. 114). The fourth is Plaintiff's Amended Motion to Deny Defendants' Protective Order (Doc. 116), filed on May 2, 2022 and the final motion is Plaintiff's Rule 60 Relief Motion from a Judgment or Order (Doc. 117), filed on May 2, 2022.
For the reasons set forth below, Defendants' motion for protective order is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART (Doc 111). Plaintiff's motions to deny are simply responses in opposition (Docs. 112, 116) and are rendered MOOT based on the Court's rulings in this Order. Plaintiff's motion for clarification is GRANTED and the Court will provide clarification below (Doc. 114). Finally, Plaintiff's Rule 60 motion is DENIED (Doc. 117).
Procedural background
The Court finds it necessary to quickly summarize the pertinent procedural background that led to this series of motions some of which were touched upon at an April 2022 Discovery Dispute hearing.
COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, available at https://www.ilsd.uscourts.gov/documents/Beatty.pdf (last visited June 14, 2022). Accordingly, the Court directed the parties to work together to submit one joint statement (including just one copy of the specific discovery in dispute) so that the Court could properly, and expeditiously address those issues (Doc. 87). A discovery dispute conference was held on February 8, 2022 (Doc. 88). At this hearing, the Court spent nearly two hours working through written discovery issues with the parties (Id.). The Court encouraged the parties to consider the rulings the Court made on the record and whether these rulings can be applied to other discovery disputes (Id.). At that time, the parties had a settlement conference scheduled the following week with Judge Sison so the Court stayed both the dispositive motion and discovery deadlines, and indicated they would be reset if the parties failed to reach a settlement with Judge Sison (Id.).
The case did not settle and so the Court then held a status conference with the parties on March 28, 2022, to discuss how to resolve the remaining discovery disputes between the parties (Doc. 108). The Court directed the parties to prepare a joint statement of the still-outstanding discovery issues (Doc. 107).
On April 26, 2022, the Court held a discovery dispute conference. During this hearing, the parties briefly discussed Defendants' motion for protective order, which was filed just five days before the hearing, and Plaintiff's response, filed one day before the hearing (Docs. 111, 112). Ultimately, the Court ruled on a few items during the hearing, which were recorded in the minute entry entered the same day (Doc. 113). The Court ruled as follows:
A. The Defendant's objections as to J.F. Electric Inc.'s Answers to Plaintiff's
First Set of Interrogatories Inc are ruled on as follows:
B. The Defendant's objection to Plaintiff's Second Request for Production as to J.F. Electric Inc. are ruled on as follows:
C. Defendant's objections to Ameren's Responses to Plaintiff's Second Request for Production is as follows:
i. Objection to request #5 has been tabled, however Court provides tentative thoughts. An order as to this issue to follow. The Court will conduct an in-camera review of the documents at issue that Defendant has redacted. The Court will review example documents from each of the two predetermined buckets. Plaintiff is to provide the selected examples to Defendant in writing. Defendant will then submit the redacted and unredacted versions to the Court by May 6, 2022.
(Doc. 113).
On April 27, 2022, Plaintiff filed his motion to clarify, detailing that he could not remember the Court's ruling on a particular issue and would like more of an explanation (Doc. 114). Soon after, on April 29, 2022, the Court entered an Order that addressed the outstanding discovery issues tabled during the hearing. The Court ruled as follows:
ORDER: On April 26, 2022, the Court tabled a ruling on one interrogatory directed at JF Electric and one request for production directed at Ameren. The Court now rules as follows. As to JF Electric's answer and supplemental answer to Interrogatory 16, the Court finds JF Electric's answer and supplemental answer to be sufficient. JF Electric has not lodged an objection and has answered and supplemented its answer and has complied with its obligation. As to Defendant Ameren's objection to RFP 5, Ameren's objection is sustained. The request is not relevant or proportional to the needs of the case for the reasons the Court outlined on the record on April 26. The plaintiff was an employee of JF Electric at all times relevant to this case. The Court ordered JF Electric to provide supplemental documents regarding comparator evidence. However, this similar request, directed at Ameren, which was not his employer is not relevant on the topic of comparator evidence.
(Doc. 115).
On May 2, 2022, Plaintiff, without requesting leave of the Court, filed an amended motion to deny Defendants' protective order (Doc. 116). The same day, Plaintiff filed a motion “on order requesting comparator evidence, ” in which Plaintiff requests the Court to reconsider part of its April 29, 2022 Order (Doc. 117). Defendants filed a response in opposition to this motion on May 16, 2022, and Plaintiff filed a reply on May 22, 2022 (Docs. 118, 119).
Presently before the Court are a total of five motions, all filed within a span of about two weeks. The Court will address each in turn.
The first of the five motions is Defendants' joint motion for protective order, which was filed on April 21, 2022 (Doc. 111). in this motion, Defendants detail that certain discovery requests, made by Plaintiff, are improper for a variety of reasons (Id.). As a result, Defendants request Court intervention in the form of a protective order that would strike these improper requests for admissions and production, relieving Defendants of the responsibility to respond.
Plaintiff filed two motions to deny in response to Defendants' motion. The first was filed on April 25, 2022 (Doc. 112) and the second, which Plaintiff detailed as an “amended motion, ” was filed on May 2, 2022 (Doc. 116). Plaintiff did not request leave to file his amended motion. Nevertheless, a review of the amended motion reveals that Plaintiff removed the “bold” font setting in certain portions of the motion (and simply used regular, non-bold font) and beginning on page 12 underlined the new or amended portion of the brief. Plaintiff argues that he has provided Defendants with discovery requests without anyone having to “pull teeth, ” and expects the same prompt cooperation in return (Doc. 116, p. 2). Furthermore, Plaintiff argues that the discovery provided by Defendants is overly redacted and unhelpful (Id. at pp. 2-3). Finally, Plaintiff states that this motion for protective order is further proof that Defendants are not engaging with Plaintiff in good faith, as they did not meet and confer with Plaintiff prior to filing this motion. Ultimately, Plaintiff argues, this is a tactic, or tool, used to intimidate him and put him at a further disadvantage as a pro se litigant.
The Court has wide discretion in settling discovery disputes, determining the scope of discovery, and otherwise controlling the manner of discovery. See, e.g., Thermal Design, Inc. v. American Soc'y of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engrs., Inc., 755 F.3d 832, 839 (7th Cir. 2014) (citation and quotations omitted). It follows that a district court has discretion in deciding when a protective order is appropriate during discovery and the degree of protection required. Jannx Med. Sys., Inc. v. Methodist Hosps., Inc., No. 2:08-CV-286-PRC, 2010 WL 4789275, at *5 (N.D. Ind. Nov. 17, 2010) (internal citation omitted). Under Rule 26(c), a court may enter a protective order for good cause shown to protect a party from annoyance, oppression, undue burden, or expense. SmartSignal Corp. v. Expert Microsystems, Inc., No. 02 C 7682, 2006 WL 1343647, at *2 (N.D. Ill. May 12, 2006), citing FED. R. CIV. P. 26(c).
There were a number of considerations the undersigned took into account in deciding the motions at issue. Plaintiff frequently argues that, as a pro se litigant, he is at a disadvantage in these proceedings. The Court is keenly aware that...
To continue reading
Request your trial