IMPERIAL Pacific International LLC denies that it violated the federal court’s discovery order in the discrimination lawsuit of its former director of operations, Joshua Gray.
Representing IPI, attorney Stephen Nutting asked the court to deny the plaintiff’s motion for sanctions.
Nutting said, “Discovery should not be used as a bludgeon to force parties to surrender under threats of sanctions and ultimate default.”
Over the preceding three months, Nutting said, IPI has “spent uncounted hours in locating documents which were applicable to plaintiff’s discovery requests in all of the files and records located throughout all of the departments of the company.”
“They have certified that there are no further physical documents to produce,” Nutting added.
He said if Gray really wants to see what Electronically Stored Information or ESI texts, e-mails, WeChat’s, videos and recordings might exist relevant to his claims or requests for production, it will be necessary for the parties to meet and agree on appropriate search terms designed to locate those relevant documents.
“IPI should not be sanctioned for failing to manually cull through two terabytes of data to see if any other materials remain in its possession (which are actually in possession of a third party) are relevant to plaintiff’s claims,” Nutting said.
District Court for the NMI Chief Judge Ramona V. Manglona previously dismissed three of four of Gray’s allegations in his complaint.
Following that dismissal, Gray filed a second lawsuit and this time provided additional details regarding the termination of his employment with IPI.
Gray accuses IPI of discrimination based on race and retaliation for complaints about its employment practices.
He asked the court to issue an order awarding him damages and other relief as the court deemed appropriate.
Gray is represented by attorneys William Fitzgerald and Bruce Berline.
On Dec. 31, 2020, Berline moved for sanctions against IPI for violations of the court’s discovery order.
