Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.

Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw

Date: 06-23-2022

Case Style:

Paul D. Reed v. Memphis Recovery Centers, Inc.

Case Number: 2:21-cv-02657

Judge: Sheryl H. Lipman

Court: United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee (Shelby County)

Plaintiff's Attorney:



Click Here to Watch How To Find A Lawyer by Kent Morlan

Click Here For The Best Memphis Civil Rights Lawyer Directory


If no lawyer is listed, call 918-582-6422 and MoreLaw will help you find a lawyer for free.


Defendant's Attorney: Rodrick D. Holmes and Elizabeth A. Anne

Description: Memphis, Tennessee pro se plaintiff without a lawyer sued Defendant on a civil rights race discrimination theory.


In his complaint, Reed alleges race discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, including illegal termination, unequal terms and conditions of employment, and a failure to “provide safety in [the] workplace.” (ECF No. 1 at 3.) Regarding the specifics of his claim, Reed writes the following:

During my tenure at Memphis Recovery Center I experience out rate [sic] racism. I was working my shift when I wrote up two white Caucasian individuals for major rules violations. These individuals threaten to do harm to me
and my family. This was told to other staff and reported to management. After complaining to management I was terminated on May 12, 2021.

Reed states that the alleged incident took place on April 18, 2021.

After investigating his case, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) issued Reed a Right to Sue letter on August 26, 2021. (ECF No. 1-1.) Reed then filed his complaint on October 20, 2021, along with a Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). (ECF Nos. 1, 2.) The undersigned granted Reed IFP status and ordered that service of process be issued on October 22, 2021. (ECF No. 7.) MRCI answered on December 1, 2021, and the case proceeded to discovery. (ECF No. 10.)

MRCI served Reed with their First Set of Interrogatories, Requests for Production of Documents, and Requests for Admissions on March 22, 2022. (ECF Nos. 21; 24-2.) Reed did not respond to these requests, prompting MRCI to follow up on May 3, 2022, and asking him to respond within ten days. (ECF No. 24-3.) When no response came, MRCI's counsel notified Reed on May 31, 2022, that they planned to file a motion to compel responses if he did not respond by June 2, 2022. (ECF No. 24-4.) Once again, MRCI did not receive a response, and they filed the present motion on June 3, 2022. (ECF No. 24.)

However, in a Motion to Extend Deadline for Alternative Dispute Resolution filed on June 14, 2022, MRCI indicated that “[o]n June 9, 2022, Plaintiff served deficient written discovery responses on Defendant” and that the “responses were none [sic] responsive to Defendant's written discovery requests.” (ECF No. 25 at 2.) Because MRCI did not attach copies of the requests or Reed's allegedly deficient responses to either motion, the court ordered MRCI to file the requests and Reed's responses, which they did on June 21, 2022. (ECF No. 29.) In an affidavit attached to this filing, MRCI's counsel stated that Reed had “failed to provide a written response” to any of the Requests at issue and had instead “provided a grouping of documents” without any additional responses.[1] (ECF No. 29-2 at 2.)...
Reed v. Memphis Recovery Ctrs. (W.D. Tenn. 2022)

Outcome:
MRCI's Motion to Compel is hereby GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. In summary, the court holds that Reed must provide written responses to the following:

• All interrogatories contained in MRCI's First Set of Interrogatories, but with the relevant time period limited to January 1, 2017 to present.

• All Requests for Production with a relevant time period of January 1, 2017 to present, except for Request No. 18. Documents produced in response to Request No. 18 are limited to the tax years during which Reed was employed by MRCI.

• All Requests for Admission.

Reed shall have thirty days from the entry of this order to provide the necessary responses. Failure to comply with this order may

8

result in sanctions, including but not limited to attorney's fees and dismissal of the lawsuit with prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments:



Find a Lawyer

Subject:
City:
State:
 

Find a Case

Subject:
County:
State: