United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division
RAY K. HAYNES Ph.D., Plaintiff,
INDIANA UNIVERSITY, THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF INDIANA UNIVERSITY, Defendants.
ORDER ON MOTION FOR SANCTIONS & PENDING DISCOVERY
J. McKINNEY, JUDGE.
matter is before the Court on seven (7) separate motions
filed by the parties. Plaintiff Ray Haynes, Ph.D., has filed
a Motion for Sanctions (dkt. 70), a Motion to Compel (dkt.
107), and a Motion for Rule 56(d) Relief (dkt. 109).
Defendants Indiana University, the Board of Trustees of
Indiana University, Joyce Alexander, Thomas Brush, Gary Crow,
Thomas Gieryn, Gerardo Gonzalez, Terrence Mason, Michael
McRobbie, Eliza Pvalko, and Laruen Robel (collectively
“Defendants”), have filed a Motion for Leave to
Submit Documents for In Camera Review (dkt. 75), a
Motion for Entry of Protective Order (dkt. 78), a Motion for
Leave to File Surreply In Opposition to Plaintiff's
Motion for Sanctions (dkt. 79), and a Motion to Strike
Response in Opposition to Motion (dkt. 84). The Court
addresses each motion in turn.
March 27, 2017, Defendants filed their Motion for Summary
Judgment, which has been fully briefed by the parties. Dkt.
March 28, 2017, Dr. Haynes filed his Motion for Sanctions
Against Defendants for Unilaterally Depriving Dr. Ray Haynes
of his Right to Cross-Examination; and for Taking 385 Days to
Produce Material Documents (“Motion for
Sanctions”). Dkt. 70.
April 10, 2017, Defendants filed a Motion for Leave to Submit
Documents for In Camera Review (“Motion for
In Camera Review”). Dkt. 75.
April 13, 2017, Defendants filed a Motion for Protective
Order that seeks protection for the votes cast by Indiana
University faculty regarding Dr. Haynes' tenure
application. Dkt. 78.
April 13, 2017, Defendants filed a Motion for Leave to File
Surreply in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for
Sanctions (“Motion for Surreply”). Dkt. 79.
April 25, 2017, Defendants submitted a Motion to Strike Dr.
Haynes' Response in Opposition to the Motion for In
Camera Review (“Motion to Strike”). Dkt. 84.
13, 2017, Dr. Haynes filed a Motion to Compel, which seeks to
correct alleged deficiencies in Defendants' discovery
responses. Dkt. 107.
May 13, 2017, Dr. Haynes filed a Motion for Rule 56(d)
Relief, which requests additional time to respond to
Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment in light of the
documents that Dr. Haynes alleges have not been properly
produced. Dkt. 109.
MOTION FOR SANCTIONS
Haynes' Motion for Sanctions seeks relief for two
violations allegedly committed by the Defendants: (1)
Defendants' termination of Dr. Haynes' January 27,
2017, deposition in violation of Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 30(d) (“Rule 30(d)”); and (2)
Defendants' delay of 385 days in providing their
privilege log and their failure for 315 days to produce
DR. HAYNES' DEPOSITION
Haynes claims that Defendants “unilaterally”
terminated his deposition. Dr. Haynes' and
Defendants' counsel disagreed as to the continuation of
the deposition for another date. More specifically, Dr.
Haynes wanted to perform his cross-examination the same
evening that Dr. Haynes was deposed, but Defendants'
Haynes' deposition began on January 27, 2017, at 9:40
a.m. Dkt. 70-1 at 3. At one point, Defendants' counsel
called Magistrate Judge LaRue (“MJ LaRue”) to
discuss whether Dr. Haynes' counsel engaged in coaching
his witness and address the manner in which he objected to
questions. Dkt. 70-1 at 32-35. During this phone call, Dr.
Haynes' counsel agreed to waive all objections save those
relating to attorney-client privilege. Dkt. 70-1 at 35. At
approximately 6:00 p.m., counsel disputed the amount of time
that it would take Dr. Haynes' counsel to cross-examine
Dr. Haynes, because Dr. Haynes' counsel stated that he
would need four to five hours. Dkt. 70-1 at 56.
Defendants' counsel indicated that the deposition would
not conclude until midnight if this occurred. Dkt. 70-1 at
56. Dr. Haynes' counsel responded that he would object to
the cessation of the deposition, but that he was
“willing to discuss another time” to resume it.
Dkt. 70-1 at 56. Both counsel then discussed availability and
settled on resuming the cross-examination of Dr. Haynes on
February 9th at 3:30 p.m., because Dr. Haynes had to teach
during morning hours. Dkt. 70-1 at 56-57. At the end of this
discussion, Defendants' counsel confirmed that he could
move some other events to make that time work, to which Dr.
Haynes' counsel responded, “I'll talk to [Dr.
Haynes] and see if he wants to do that, but for now,
let's proceed with the rest of his deposition.”
Dkt. 70-1 at 57.
counsel then resumed the questioning until, in the middle of
a question by Defendants' counsel, Dr. Haynes'
counsel stated that he had a court reporter in his office
“if you're going to deny us to do any redirect, and
I will try to keep it to only an hour to do the
redirect.” Dkt. 70-1 at 63. Dr. Haynes' counsel
continued, “I've called a court reporter to get a
court reporter over here, and we need to talk about it now,
because that's my plan. If you're denying us to do a
redirect of even an hour, I think that's denial of our
ability to do a redirect.” Dkt. 70-1 at 63. The parties
then went off the record. Dkt. 70-1 at 63.
p.m., Dr. Haynes' counsel stated that he and
Defendants' counsel had a discussion of a “hard
stop” of one hour for redirect, but that he was
objecting to it. Dkt. 70-1 at 63-64. Defendants' counsel
reiterated that Dr. Haynes' counsel claimed that the
redirect would take four to five hours and that Dr.
Haynes' counsel could not guarantee that he would abide
by the one hour hard stop. Dkt. 70-1 at 64. Dr. Haynes'
counsel responded that he would stick to the hard stop of one
hour, but noted that he did so under objection. Dkt. 70-1 at
64. Defendants' counsel agreed to the one hour hard stop
time. Dkt. 70-1 at 64.
p.m., following a discussion off the record, both counsel
recommenced the argument relating to the one-hour hard stop
because Defendants' counsel's had refused to consent
to a hard stop of one hour on his redirect. Dkt. 70-1 at
68-69. Defendants' counsel stated that he was concluding
the deposition after his final questions, but was going to
keep the deposition open so that Dr. Haynes' counsel
could perform his cross-examination and to address issues
relating to Dr. Haynes' counsel's behavior during the
deposition. Dkt. 70-1 at 68-69.
more argument between counsel, Dr. Haynes and his counsel
left the room and Defendants' counsel recited a summary
of what occurred on the record. Dkt. 70-1 at 71-74. The
deposition concluded at 8:28 p.m. Dkt. 70-1 at 74.
two hours after the conclusion of Dr. Haynes' deposition,
Defendants' counsel received an email from Dr.
Haynes' counsel summarizing what happened during the
deposition and requesting that Defendants' counsel
contact Dr. Haynes' counsel to discuss the matter without
the need for Court intervention - despite copying the Court
on the email. Dkt. 71-1. The following day, Saturday, Dr.
Haynes' counsel again emailed the Court to outline the
allegedly improper conduct of Defendants' counsel and to
request an in-person conference. Dkt. 71-2 at 1-3. That
Monday, both counsel discussed the matter and resolved to
continue Dr. Haynes' deposition to a later date. Dkt.
71-3 at 1-2. Dr. Haynes' counsel emailed the Court and
stated that they had “resolved all outstanding issues
relating to plaintiff's deposition” and that as a
result, would not “need court intervention at this
time.” Dkt 71-4.
February 23, 2017, approximately one month after Dr.
Haynes' deposition and after Defendants objected to Dr.
Haynes' request to extend the discovery deadlines, Dr.
Haynes' counsel emailed Defendants' counsel to seek
dates to reconvene for Dr. Haynes' deposition. Dkt. 71-5
at 2-3. Defendants' counsel supplied three dates, of
which Dr. Haynes' counsel chose March 14. Dkt. 71-3 at
March 1, MJ LaRue entered an Order denying Dr. Haynes'
request to extend the discovery deadline. Dkt. 57. MJ LaRue
noted that the Court had already afforded Dr. Haynes over six
(6) months of additional discovery time, but that he waited
until thirteen (13) days before the deadline's expiration
to seek a fourth extension. Dkt. 57 at 2. MJ LaRue also noted
that Dr. Haynes was “not diligent” in his pursuit
of discovery and that at “no earlier point did [Dr.
Haynes] present a motion to compel or otherwise seek
intervention of the Court to address his litany of
deficiencies and scheduling issues.” Dkt. 57 at 7. MJ
LaRue concluded by stating that “this ruling does not
foreclose [Dr. Haynes'] opportunity to promptly
present, by motion, any issue related to the resumption of
Defendants' deposition of [Dr. Haynes].” Dkt. 57 at
March 13, Dr. Haynes' counsel emailed to cancel the
continuation of the deposition because Dr. Haynes was ill.
Dkt. 71-8 at 4-5. Defendants' counsel responded that he
had no objection to cancelling and indicated that he had no
further need to depose Dr. Haynes unless Dr. Haynes'
counsel needed to cross-examine his client. Dkt. 71-8 at 4.
After Dr. Haynes' counsel indicated that he wished to
reschedule, Defendants' counsel stated that March 21, and
22, were his available dates. Dkt. 71-8 at 3. Defendants'
counsel wrote that “[b]ecause the dispositive motion
deadline is March 28, 2017, we need to complete Dr.
Haynes's deposition by no later than March 23,
2017.” Dkt. 71-8 at 1. Dr. Haynes' counsel did not