United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Orlando Division
BRIAN M. POWELL and TIFFANY POWELL, Plaintiffs,
v.
MORGAN PROPERTY SOLUTIONS, INC., Defendant.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
LESLIE
R. HOFFMAN, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
TO
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT:
This
cause came on for consideration without oral argument on the
following motions filed herein:
MOTION: PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO DISMISS (Doc.
76)
FILED: September 26, 2019
THEREON it is respectfully
RECOMMENDED that the motion be
GRANTED.
MOTION: DEFENDANT MORGAN PROPERTY SOLUTIONS'
MOTION FOR SANCTIONS PURSUANT TO RULE 37 AND RULE 41(B) FOR
NOT OBEYING A DISCOVERY ORDER (Doc. 74)
FILED: September 25, 2019
THEREON it is respectfully
RECOMMENDED that the motion be
GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN
PART.
I.
BACKGROUND
The
tortured history of this case began on April 20, 2018 when
Plaintiffs Brian M. Powell (“Mr. Powell”) and
Tiffany Powell (“Mrs. Powell”), both of whom are
proceeding pro se and have been granted in forma
pauperis status (see Doc. 14), filed a
four-count Complaint against Defendant Morgan Property
Solutions, Inc. (“Morgan Property”) alleging
violations of the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. §
3604(f)(1)(A) and (C) (“FHA”) (Counts 1-3), and a
violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. §
1681m(a) (“FCRA”) (Count 4). (Doc.
7).[1]
On June 4, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed a second amended
complaint removing the FCRA claim and proceeding solely on
two counts of discrimination under the FHA. (Doc. 9).
Unfortunately,
since the filing of the amended complaint, the parties have
engaged in contentious motions and discovery practice which,
in the undersigned's opinion, has unnecessarily prolonged
the litigation of this case, as well as wasted attorney,
litigant, and Court resources. Numerous unsuccessful motions
for default have been filed (see Docs. 19, 23,
26-29, 31), as well as various motions for sanctions. (Docs.
34, 36, 44). The parties also experienced extreme
difficulties in agreeing on the most basic of discovery and
trial management issues - the Court was forced to hold a
preliminary pretrial conference in order to establish the
Case Management and Scheduling Order (“CMSO”) in
this case. (Docs. 36, 41-44, 46-48). Several motions to
compel followed. (Docs. 63, 70).
On
September 5, 2019, the undersigned held a hearing on Morgan
Property's motion to compel Mr.
Powell's[2] attendance at deposition. (Docs. 63, 68).
Mr. Powell refused to appear in person at his deposition, but
instead sought to be deposed remotely via telephone or online
in order to accommodate the numerous physical and mental
impairments that he suffers from. Morgan Property refused to
accommodate this request. After hearing argument from both
sides, the undersigned scheduled Mr. Powell's deposition
for September 25, 2019 at 10:00 a.m., to be held at his
current place of residence. (Doc. 69 at 3). The undersigned
further accommodated Mr. Powell by directing counsel for
Morgan Property to conduct the deposition remotely, using
appropriate audiovisual recording equipment - the only
persons who would appear at Mr. Powell's residence would
be the court reporter. (Id.). The undersigned's
order (which was issued on the same day as the hearing -
September 5, 2019) further stated that “[i]f either
party must change any aspect of [Mr. Powell's]
deposition, that party must timely file an appropriate motion
explaining why the relief sought is necessary.
Changing any aspect of [Mr. Powell's] depositions
set forth in this Order without Court approval may result in
the imposition of sanctions against the offending
party.” (Id. at 4 (emphasis in
original)).
Unfortunately,
Mr. Powell did not heed the undersigned's warnings. On
September 25, 2019, the court reporter hired by Morgan
Property arrived at Mr. Powell's current place of
residence on time to conduct the deposition. (Doc. 74). Mr.
Powell did not allow the court reporter entrance into his
...