ST. LOUIS – Express Scripts Services Co. was granted a motion to dismiss a pro se plaintiff's discrimination suit by a federal court because of her failure to comply with court orders and discovery obligations.
Judge Henry Edward Autrey of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri granted the defendant's motion to dismiss Obed Brown's case with prejudice on April 25.
"As a result of plaintiff's willful disregard of her discovery obligations and court orders, defendant's ability to defend this suit has been seriously hampered," Autrey wrote. "Time and money have been wasted, and defendant still does not have all the information it needs to file a motion for summary judgment or go to trial. The court finds that during the course of this litigation plaintiff has been deliberately evasive. She has willfully and unreasonably delayed these proceedings."
The ruling states Brown was employed by Express Scripts from October 2013 to December 2015. In March 2017, Brown filed a complaint against the company, alleging that the defendant discriminated against her based on her gender. The complaint also included allegations of discrimination based on sexual orientation, race, criminal claims and gang stalking.
Brown also alleged damages of wrongful termination, poverty, housing loss and distress.
Most of the plaintiff’s claims were dismissed in an earlier ruling, but the sex discrimination, harassment and retaliation claims remained.
In May 2018, Script served Brown a written discovery asking to see interrogatories, medical records and requests for admission.
“Plaintiff served defendant with her answers to interrogatories and responses to requests for admission on May 30, and her responses to request for production on June 3,” according to the ruling. “For most of her responses and answers, plaintiff declined to respond or asserted privileges and objections that were irrelevant or unsupported.”
Express Scripts filed the motion to dismiss in February after more unsuccessful attempts to compel production of documents.
“In this case, the court finds plaintiff has willfully disregarded the court's orders,” Autrey wrote. “Plaintiff was ordered to respond to defendant's interrogatories and requests for production on July 12, 2018, and Aug. 15, 2018. In the written order dated Aug. 15, plaintiff was warned that her failure to comply would result in dismissal.”