Scribd
Upload
802 views2 pages

Motion To Compel

The motion requests that the Agency be compelled to respond to the complainant's discovery requests and be sanctioned. The complainant served discovery requests on July 21, 2005 but the Agency did not respond by the August 22nd deadline. The motion argues the Agency's failure to respond is hampering the complainant's ability to complete discovery in a timely manner as required. Appropriate sanctions are requested given the Agency's unjustifiable delay of the EEO process in this case and failure to properly investigate previous complaints.

Uploaded by

Lyciaora
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
802 views2 pages

Motion To Compel

The motion requests that the Agency be compelled to respond to the complainant's discovery requests and be sanctioned. The complainant served discovery requests on July 21, 2005 but the Agency did not respond by the August 22nd deadline. The motion argues the Agency's failure to respond is hampering the complainant's ability to complete discovery in a timely manner as required. Appropriate sanctions are requested given the Agency's unjustifiable delay of the EEO process in this case and failure to properly investigate previous complaints.

Uploaded by

Lyciaora
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Sample Motion to Compel

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION


WASHINGTON FIELD OFFICE

IN THE MATTER OF: ] Current EEO File No.:


] EEOC 123-45-6789X
Ive Ben Wronged, ]
]
Complainant, ]
]
vs. ]
] AGENCY #1-H-234-4567-89
Daniel Glickman, ]
Secretary, Department of Agriculture, ] OFO Appeal #01234567
]
Agency. ]

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY AND FOR SANCTIONS

Complainant respectfully requests that the Agency be compelled to respond to her


Discovery and that the Agency be sanctioned.

1. In January 2004, Complainant’s counsel filed a Motion for Sanctions and a


Request for a Hearing with the EEOC in Washington, DC, which has never
been responded to by the Agency (ROI pp 29-34).

2. Complainant’s Counsel received the Acknowledgment Order in this case on


July 6, 2005.

3. Discovery was filed with the Agency on July 21, 2005 (Attached).

4. The Agency’s Responses to Discovery were due no later than Monday,


August 22, 2005. To date, no Response has been received.

5. The Acknowledgment Order states:

6. A timely Motion to Compel would be filed on or before September 1, 2005.


7. A good faith effort has been made to resolve this dispute. Complainant’s
counsel emailed the Agency representative on August 30, 2005 at 1:00 a.m.
and requested the status of the Agency responses, noting that if responses
were not received by COB August 31, 2005, 40 days after service of
discovery, a Motion to Compel would be filed.

8. The Agency’s attorney replied, astonishingly, that as of August 31, 2005, she
had not received any Discovery request from Complainant.

9. Of course, Complainant served her Discovery upon the same individual that
all other documents had been served, including the Acknowledgment Order;
the Motion to Amend the Issue, to Consolidate and for Sanctions; the Order to
Show Cause, etc. The fax proof of delivery is attached to the Discovery,
annexed hereto.

10. The Agency has refused to provide responses and has declined to provide any
date that it will provide responses to Discovery.

11. The Agency’s failure to provide any responses to Discovery is seriously


hampering Complainant’s ability to schedule depositions in this case, and to
timely complete Discovery within the strict time deadlines contained in the
Acknowledgment Order.

Since the Agency has failed to respond to Discovery, and has indisputably and
unjustifiably delayed the EEO process, failed to investigate eleven (11) Complaints,
failed to process two (2) full-fledged complaints and failed to conduct a proper
investigation into the instant Complaint, appropriate sanctions should be levied.

Respectfully Submitted,

_________________________
Michael J. Snider, Esq.
Ari Taragin, Esq.
Jeff Taylor, Esq.
Snider & Associates, LLC
104 Church Lane, Suite 201
Baltimore, MD 21208
410-653-9060 voice
410-653-9061 fax

You might also like