![]() ![]() 37(b)(2)(A) based on Jones’s “excessive delay” and his “stubborn approach to discovery” the judge emphasized that Jones had four months to comply with Runaway Bay’s requests. 18 3667 awarded expenses of $250 to Runaway Bay under FED. Jones responded that it would be unfair for him to pay Runaway Bay’s expenses because the magistrate judge “failed to outline what would happen if my objections not sustained” and that the requests to produce were “redundant” and “repetitive.” The judge found that Jones failed to provide any basis for his position and that the requested information was relevant. In March 2018, the magistrate judge again granted the motions to compel and ordered Jones to show cause why his failure to produce the documents was substantially justified or if other circumstances would make an award of expenses unjust. In its motions to compel, Runaway Bay argued that it could not prepare for trial because, without the requested information, it could not properly defend against Jones’s claims for damages. He contended that his medical history for the past ten years was “irrelevant and unnecessary” and “not within the scope of discovery.” And he argued that information about his work history and criminal background over the last ten years was “burdensome” and “overbroad” and that information about his finances was “already asked and answered,” so any further questions were “oppressive.” Runaway Bay then filed two more motions to compel, including a request for sanctions. Jones timely filed his discovery responses but objected to requests for information about his health, employment, criminal record, and finances. At a hearing the following month on discovery related issues, the magistrate judge granted Runaway Bay’s motion and ordered Jones to answer the interrogatories immediately and produce the requested documents within a week. When after two months Jones did not respond, Runaway Bay filed a motion to compel. To respond to these claims, in October 2017 Runaway Bay requested information and documents related to Jones’s medical care, work history, criminal record, and finances. These actions, Jones claimed, caused financial loss and mental and physical distress. Jones further alleged that Runaway Bay unlawfully denied him access to the apartment’s clubhouse after notifying him that it terminated his lease. Runaway Bay, he said, unjustifiably credited the version of events presented by two white members of the maintenance staff over his own. He asserted that, after a disagreement with maintenance staff during a service call in his home, Runaway Bay wrongfully terminated his lease. 18 3667 Jones, an African American, alleged that Runaway Bay racially discriminated against him by terminating his lease, failing to conduct repairs, and later having him removed from the apartment complex’s clubhouse. * We have agreed to decide the case without oral argument because the briefs and record adequately present the facts and legal arguments, and oral argument would not significantly aid the court. The district court dismissed the case for want of prosecution because Jones did not comply with Runaway Bay’s discovery requests after the judge granted three motions to compel, imposed monetary sanctions, and warned Jones about dismissal of his suit if he failed to comply. O R D E R Robert Jones appeals the dismissal of his lawsuit against his former landlord, Runaway Bay Apartments M/A Mgmt Corp., for violating the Fair Housing Act. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, South Bend Division. M/A MGMT CORP, et al., Defendants Appellees. ![]() 32.1 United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604 Submitted May 17, 2019* Decided Before MICHAEL S. NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited only in accordance with Fed. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |