Preview:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND : RON BERMAN : v. : Civil Action No. DKC 2002-3470

: CONGRESSIONAL TOWERS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP - SECTION I, et al.: MEMORANDUM OPINION Presently pending and ready for resolution are Plaintiff Ron Berman's objections to the January 29, 2004, and February 23, 2004, orders of Magistrate Judge Jillyn K. Schulze.1 The issues

have been fully briefed and no hearing is deemed necessary. Local Rule 105.6. For the reasons that follow, Plaintiff's

objections will be overruled. I. Introduction Plaintiff's objections arise in a suit for alleged

disability discrimination and negligence.

The case was referred

to Magistrate Judge Schulze for resolution of all discovery disputes, of which there have been many, and for determination of non-dispositive matters. Presently at issue are three

motions filed by Plaintiff: (1)

December 5, 2003 Motion For

Sanctions For Violation of the Scheduling Order (paper no.

For reasons discussed herein, Plaintiff has filed separate "motions for reconsideration" of Judge Schulze's January 29, 2004 and February 23, 2004 orders.

1

77)("first motion for sanctions"); (2) December 11, 2003 Motion For Reconsideration (paper no. 78); and (3) December 20, 2003 Motion For Sanctions For Failure to Sufficiently Respond to Discovery Requests (paper no. 80)("second motion for

sanctions").

On January 29, 2003, Judge Schulze denied the

first motion for sanctions and the motion for reconsideration. See paper no. 92.2 The second motion for sanctions was

denied on the substantive issues; that is, to the extent that Plaintiff sought additional discovery or sanctions based on the content of the discovery. Judge Schulze deferred ruling on

Plaintiff's allegations of bad faith and/or fraud, finding these claims to present factual and legal issues well beyond the scope of discovery. Id. The parties were granted additional time to Id. On February Judge

brief these "extremely serious allegations." 23, 2004, upon receiving briefs from both

parties,

Schulze, finding the motion not in compliance with the local rules and gravely lacking in merit, denied the motion in full. See paper no. 96. Apparently viewing the judicial system as

akin to a battle field, Plaintiff now seeks another opportunity

The order is dated January 28, 2004, but, because it was not entered on the docket until the next day, the operative filing date is January 29, 2004. 2

2

vehemently to assert the same unsupported theories previously rejected on numerous occasions. II. Standard of Review Under 28 U.S.C.

Download Berman v. Congressional Towers (Memorandum).pdf

Maryland Law