Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Jacqueline R. Giambra v. Zeller Corporation

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK


July 26, 2012

JACQUELINE R. GIAMBRA, PLAINTIFF
v.
ZELLER CORPORATION, DEFENDANT

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Charles J. Siragusa United States District Judge

DECISION AND ORDER

This is an action alleging employment discrimination in violation of Title VII. To date, Plaintiff Jacqueline Giambra, w ho is proceeding pro se, has refused to provide discovery to Defendant. In that regard, on December 1, 2011, the Honorable Jonathan W. Feldman, United States Magistrate Judge, ordered that all mandatory disclosures under Rule 26(a)(1) be made by December 30, 2011. See, Scheduling Order (Docket No. 7). Defendant complied w ith the Order, but Plaintiff did not. On March 9, 2012, at Plaintiff's request, Judge Feldman issued an Amended Scheduling Order (Docket No. 15), directing that Mandatory Disclosures be made by April 2, 2012. Plaintiff requested the extension on the ground that her mother had recently died. Again, though, and despite several requests from Defendant, Plaintiff did not provide any discovery by the Court-ordered deadline. As a result, Defendant has been required to cancel tw o scheduled depositions of Plaintiff.

On May 2, 2012, Defendant again w rote to Plaintiff to ask her cooperation in providing discovery. Defendant's letter concluded as follow s: " [T]his is Defendant's final attempt to obtain mandatory disclosures. Should w e receive no response from you by Monday, May 7, 2012, w e w ill request the Court's intervention, and pursue dismissal and/or an appropriate remedy."

Having received no response, on May 15, 2012, Defendant filed the subject motion (Docket No. 17) to compel discovery, or in the alternative, to dismiss the action pursuant to Rules 37 and 41. In response, Plaintiff sent a letter to the Court, indicating that she felt that she w as " being bullied." See, Pl. letter dated May 16, 2012. How ever, her letter provides no good reason for her failure to comply w ith the Court's Orders.

The Court is inclined to dismiss the action, because Plaintiff's failure to comply w ith the Court's Orders is completely unjustified. Moreover, from the Court's review of the Complaint, including the supplemental allegations filed in case number 11-CV-6005, it appears that Plaintiff's allegations of sexual harassment lack merit, and w ill eventually be dismissed in any event. Nevertheless, because Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the Court w ill allow her one final opportunity to comply w ith her discovery obligations.

ORDER

It is hereby

ORDERED that Plaintiff shall provide Defendant's counsel w ith her mandatory disclosures under Federal Rule 26(a)(1) w ithin seven (7) days of the date of this Decision and Order. In the event that Plaintiff fails to do so, the Court w ill dismiss the action w ith prejudice. If Plaintiff complies w ith this Decision and Order, Defendant's counsel shall request a further Scheduling Order from Magistrate Judge Feldman.

SO ORDERED.

ENTER:

Charles J. Siragusa

20120726

© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.