Pro Se Renewed Motion for Sanctions is Denied

In Adams-Devonish v. KEHE Distributors, 2025 WL 1413282 (D. Md. May 15, 2025)(Aslan, J.), a pro se plaintiff sued for alleged discrimination.

Plaintiff’s “renewed” motion for sanctions was denied for several reasons.

First, the Court declined to entertain a repetitive motion.   It wrote:

The Court has ordered production of the redacted materials, which has been completed and, as the pending motion and exhibits thereto make clear, Mr. Adams-Devonish now has the benefit of the discovery he sought. Any prejudice he may have encountered due to the delay in production may be remedied by an extension of the discovery deadlines should one be requested.

Second, the movant failed to carry the burden of proof under Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(e) by clear and convincing proof.  The Court appears to have applied that standard to both Rule 37(e)(1) and 37(e)(2).  See id. at *1. The Court concluded: “Viewing Mr. Adams-Devonish’s spoliation allegations under this rubric, it is evident that sanctions are not warranted.”

Third, to the extent to which a new discovery dispute was being raised, the movant failed to comply with the Local Rule’s good faith “meet and confer” requirement:

In his motion, Mr. Adams-Devonish indicates that he “contacted defense counsel via email on May 12, 2025, at approximately 4:50 PM, requesting a meet and confer.” … The Court’s Case Management/Electronic Case Files system (CM/ECF) reflects that he filed the instant motion on May 14, 2025, at 4:15 PM, which is less than 48 hours after he initially requested a meet-and-confer.… This Court’s Local Rules require “a reasonable effort to resolve…differences,” which “means more than sending an email or letter to the opposing party.” Local Rule 104.7 (D. Md. 2023). A reasonable effort “requires that the parties meet in person or by video or telephonic means for a reasonable period of time in a good faith effort to resolve the disputed matter.” … The parties must therefore engage in a good faith effort to resolve any discovery dispute before seeking relief from the Court.

The Court also provided an escape hatch, writing:  “Should the parties be unable to resolve this or another discovery dispute after a good faith effort, they must request a discovery conference with the undersigned before filing a discovery motion. In preparation for any such discovery conference, the parties may each file via CM/ECF a two-page letter outlining the dispute and their respective positions. The undersigned will then promptly schedule a recorded discovery conference.”  Id. at *2.

It is noteworthy that the plaintiff’s motion was filed on May 14th at 4:15 p.m., and the Court ruled on May 15th.