Federal Magistrate Judge Theresa Carroll Buchanan Acts As Co-Counsel For Defendant FedEx Ground Pack
On November 15, 2016, Bully Judge THERESA CARROLL BUCHANAN (“Judge Buchanan”) a Federal Magistrate Judge for the United States District Court, Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria Division, became First Chair for Defendant FedEx Ground Package System, Inc. (“FedEx Ground”) in my lawsuit against FedEx Ground.
I am representing myself in my lawsuit against FedEx Ground for sex discrimination and retaliation. I filed my lawsuit on May 17, 2016.
FedEx Ground is represented by its in-house Senior Attorney Mitchell S. Bober and the law firm of BRIGLIAHUNDLEY, P.C. which includes Attorney Nicholas V. Cumings. BRIGLIAHUNDLEY, P.C. is located in Tysons Corner, Virginia.
In her new self-imposed role as co-counsel for FedEx Ground, Judge Buchanan made a boilerplate claim that my interrogatories are IMPROPER.
In her Order dated and filed November 15, 2016, Judge Buchanan wrote:
Upon review of the discovery responses provided by
defendant, the Court finds that most, if not all, of plaintiff’s interrogatories are improper, and, to a large extent, not
relevant to the claims and defenses in this case. Some
questions seek information that is privileged, most assume
facts that are not in evidence, contain compound
questions, are argumentative, and are simply not
capable of being answered in a meaningful way.
Emphasis added.
However, FedEx Ground never claimed that my interrogatories were improper and not capable of being answered in a meaningful way.
In fact, after making the usual boilerplate objections FedEx Ground decided that my interrogatories were responsive:
Emphasis added.
Judge Buchanan’s finding that my interrogatories are improper is plainly arbitrary and capricious. Although she is required by legal authority to do, Judge Buchanan willfully:
(1) did not provide me with sufficient information to enable me to evaluate the applicability of her finding;
(2) did not show specifically how each of my interrogatory is defected; and
(3) did not articulate how FedEx Ground would be harmed if FedEx
Ground was forced to respond to my alleged IMPROPER interrogatories.
“Federal courts have routinely deemed boilerplate
objections to be improper objections.” St. Paul
Reinsurance Co. v. Commercial Fin. Corp., 198 F.R.D.
508, 512 (N.D. Iowa 2000).
“Boilerplate objections often fail to articulate any
particular harm.” Josephs v. Harris Corp., 677 F.2d
985 – Court of Appeals, 3rd Circuit 1982 992.
Objecting parties must provide sufficient information
to enable other parties to evaluate the applicability of
their claims. Burlington N & Santa Fe Ry. Co., 408
F.3d at 1148 (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 Advisory
Committee’s Notes (1993), Subdiv. (b) (5)) (internal
quotation marks omitted),
… and must show specifically how…each interrogatory
is not relevant or how each question is overly broad,
burdensome or oppressive. Josephs, 677 F.2d at 992
(quoting Roseburg, 85 F.R.D. at 296-97).
A responsive objection is one that states (1) how a
discovery request is deficient and (2) how the objecting
party would be harmed if they were forced to
respond to the request. St. Paul Reinsurance Co.,
198 F.R.D. at 512.
See also, Abraham v. Cnty. of Greenville, 237 F.3d
386, 392 (4th Cir. 2001) (finding it was not an abuse
of discretion for the district court to hold that boilerplate
objectives constituted no response under Rule 37.
Judge Buchanan also arbitrarily decided that it was OK for FedEx Ground to disobey Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 33(d). Judge Buchanan wrote:
Although plaintiff is correct that defendant would
normally be required to correspond its document
production to the interrogatory being answered, the
Court finds that based on the valid objections filed
by defendant and the nature of the interrogatories
posed as described above, such correlation is impossible.
Therefore, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Emergency
Motion to Compel and for Sanctions. (Dkts. 33, 34.)
Emphasis added.
Yet, FedEx Ground never claimed that the “nature” of my interrogatories made it “impossible” for it to correlate its documents to respond to my interrogatories. It was FedEx Ground that opted to respond to my interrogatories with documents.
Also, FedEx Ground never filed any objections, valid or otherwise, with the Court.
Furthermore, Judge Buchanan had the opportunity on October 28, 2016 to make whatever findings and claims she wanted to make about my interrogatories at FedEx Ground’s bogus motions hearing.
Instead, Judge Buchanan ORDERED FedEx Ground to respond to my discovery requests by 5 PM on Wednesday, November 2, 2016 without any findings or claims that my interrogatories were IMPROPER.
Furthermore, FedEx Ground did not object to Judge Buchanan’s ORDER to respond to my interrogatories as they were presented or for any reason. FedEx Ground did not raise any issues that my interrogatories were IMPROPER.
Judge Buchanan made the arbitrary and capricious findings and claims about my interrogatories only after FedEx Ground’s “big man on campus” attorney Cumings informed Judge Buchanan that I had filed an Objection against her Order dated October 28, 2016 that granted FedEx Ground’s bogus protective order motion.
Judge Buchanan’s finding conveys a clear and strong message that neither she nor FedEx Ground is required to follow the discovery rules.
Consequently, the Magistrate Court violated my FUNDAMENTAL right to a Fair and Impartial Court.
Emphasis added.
stubbornly and laconically sticks to his guns despite repeated requests for reconsideration or an explanation, he inevitably
Emphasis added.
In her role as co-counsel for FedEx Ground, Judge Buchanan failed miserably to ensure that justice was done, and that it appeared to have been done.
Without a doubt, Judge Buchanan acted for personal and improper reasons rather than according to the rule of law.
Judge Buchanan behaved as if she is in the back pockets of FedEx Ground.
Indeed, Judge Buchanan is a Bully Judge.
However, it’s HARD to beat a person that NEVER gives up.
Stay Tuned.
#TitleVII #NicholasVCumings #BrigliaHundleyPC #1stAmendmentUSConstitution #5thAmendmentUSConstitution #FedExGroundPackageSystem #FederalJudgeTheresaCarollBuchanan #USDistrictCourt #ProtectiveOrder #ConfidentialityAgreement #FreeSpeech #lawblog #legalblog #Interrogatories #Deposition #BoilerplateOjections #DiscoveryRule33 #FairandImpartialCourts #DiscoveryEvidence #CaseNo16547 #CognitiveImpairment #TitleVIIRetaliation #EasternofVirginia #MotionforSanctions #DiscoveryRule2 #AmySOwen #TitleVIISexDiscrimination #MitchellSBober #TwoVideoFootagesAllegedWORKPLACEVIOLENCE #AudiotapedInterviewandDiscussion #Alzheimer #BullyJudgeTheresaCarrollBuchanan