No. 4:02-CV-126-AUnited States District Court, N.D. Texas, Fort Worth Division
June 28, 2002
MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER
JOHN MCBRYDE, United States District Judge
Came on for consideration the motion of defendant, ConAgra Grocery Products Company, for summary judgment. The court, having considered the motion papers, the record, and applicable authorities, finds that defendant’s motion should be granted.
I. Plaintiff’s Complaint
Plaintiff, Kenneth Lewis, alleges that while employed by defendant, he was subject to racial discrimination and harassment in violation of the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act, TEX. LAB. CODE § 21.001 et seq (“TCHRA”). Plaintiff also asserts common law claims for intentional infliction of severe emotional distress.
II. Sanctions Against Plaintiff
During the pendency of this action, defendant served various discovery instruments on plaintiff. Plaintiff failed to respond to these discovery requests. By an order signed March 8, 2002, the court sanctioned plaintiff and barred him from using in this action any withheld information or documents in support of his claims at trial, at a hearing, or on a motion.
III. Defendant’s Motion For Summary Judgment
Defendant moves for summary judgment on the grounds that (1) plaintiff does not have any evidence that he was subjected to acts which were allegedly discriminatory or harassing, and (2) his common law claim must fail as he cannot show that defendant’s conduct was extreme and outrageous or that his alleged emotional distress was severe.
IV. Undisputed Facts
The following is an overview of evidence pertinent to the motion for summary judgment that is undisputed in the summary judgment record:
Plaintiff is an African-American male employed by defendant at the Ranch Style Beans plant (the “plant”) in Fort Worth, Texas.
On August 22, 2001, defendant served on plaintiff its first set of interrogatories. The interrogatories requested plaintiff to describe the acts of harassment and discrimination to which he alleged that he had been subjected; and to provide the basis of his claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress. Plaintiff did not respond to any of the interrogatories.
V. Analysis
A party is entitled to summary judgment on all or any part of a claim as to which there is no genuine issue of material fact and as to which the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247
(1986). The moving party has the initial burden of showing that there is no genuine issue of material fact. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 256. The movant may discharge this burden by pointing out the absence of evidence to support one or more essential elements of the non-moving party’s claim “since a complete failure of proof concerning an essential element of the nonmoving party’s case necessarily renders all other facts immaterial.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323-25 (1986). Once the moving party has carried its burden under Rule 56(c), the non-moving party must do more than merely show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986). The party opposing the motion may not rest on mere allegations or denials of pleading, but must set forth specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248, 256. To meet this burden, the nonmovant must “identify specific evidence in the record and articulate the `precise manner’ in which that evidence support[s] [its] claim[s].” Forsyth v. Barr, 19 F.3d 1527, 1537 (5th Cir. 1994). An issue is material only if its resolution could affect the outcome of the action. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248. Unsupported allegations, conclusory in nature, are insufficient to defeat a proper motion for summary judgment. Simmons v. Lyons, 746 F.2d 265, 269 (5th Cir. 1984).
As noted above, plaintiff was barred from relying upon any information or document which was requested but not produced. He may not sidestep this sanction by producing the deposition transcripts of former co-plaintiffs.
Defendant has pointed out the absence of evidence to support the essential elements of plaintiff’s claims. In response, plaintiff has produced no valid summary judgment evidence establishing prima facie cases of discrimination and harassment or the basis of a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress[1] . The court, therefore, finds that summary judgment should be granted.
VI. ORDER
For the reasons discussed herein,
The court ORDERS that defendant’s motion for summary judgment be, and is hereby, granted; and that all claims asserted by plaintiff in the above-captioned action be, and are hereby, dismissed with prejudice.