Jackson Jambalaya

A federal judge told Carlos Moore to pay his $3,000 fine after the Grenada attorney asked him to reconsider the fine. U.S. District Judge David Sanders sanctioned Mr. Moore after he failed to respond to discovery requests in a wrongful death lawsuit. Mr. Moore sued the city of Tupelo last year on behalf of the family of  Antwun Shumpert after he was shot to death by a Tupelo police officer. Mr. Moore asked the court to reconsider imposing the sanctions on him.  He said he was affected by several death threats that were made against him in a separate lawsuit concerning the state flag.  The Court was unmoved by his pleas for mercy and had a few things to say to the lawyer.

Mr. Moore blamed his inability to provide discovery on death threats. Mr. Moore made several sensational claims in the complaint as well as in statements made the media (They are covered thoroughly in this post and well worth reading.).*   He charged that the city issued a memo that said it was "open season on black people". The police let a K-9 dog chew up Shumpert.  He said an ambulance intentionally delayed responding to a dying Antwun Shumpert.  He alleged that Shumpert was killed when he tried to surrender and said “It was a modern day lynching.  It was simply an execution.”  He even told the New York Times “They have declared open season on us, and they are killing with impunity.”

Tupelo challenged those claims in discovery and asked for the evidence that supported those claims- in other words, it was time to put up or shut up.  Mr. Moore and his client didn't respond to the discovery requests and then submitted some half-baked, vague answers that were deemed to be more than a little deficient in nature.  The court imposed sanctions on Mr. Moore for $3,000. The court also noted that Moore was using an anonymous phone call to support some of his claims and that Moore fabricated the memo.  He defended doing so on the grounds that he was using a "rhetorical device."

The case then became all about the state flag. The Grenada attorney complained to the court that he could not comply with discovery deadlines because of death threats he received due to his efforts in another lawsuit to get the Mississippi state flag removed.  He argued in a motion for reconsideration:

2) Also, Plaintiffs through counsel, ask the Court to take judicial notice that no other lawyer in Mississippi likely endured five death threats from various sources as well as had a spouse with a prolonged unexpected illness requiring said spouse to be out of work for a month in the last quarter of 2016. The Court is asked to find excusable neglect and no malice under the circumstances. Counsel for the Plaintiffs simply filed a lawsuit and appeal challenging the state flag which has the Confederate emblem, a symbol of white supremacy, embedded, and received unwarranted death make threats which had an adverse effect on counsel’s job performance.  (KF: Yes, he threw in the state flag. Yes, he is that dumb.) The unexpected illness of counsel’s wife in late 2016 also put said counsel behind in his work on behalf of several clients and has necessitated said counsel bringing in co-counsel in this case and others. Even Rule 37 (a)(5)(A)(iii) allows the Court to not sanction a party or counsel if “other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust.” Five death threats and an unexpected illness of the undersigned counsel’s wife are the other circumstances particular to the undersigned that make the award of expenses unjust in this instance. Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure also allows for relief from an Order because of excusable neglect. Counsel should not be penalized for focusing on staying alive and caring for a sick spouse. That would be against public policy. Neither the Plaintiffs nor the Defendants suffered irreparable harm or undue prejudice because of  the short delay in answering  discovery.   The discovery deadline is  currently August 4, 2017.

The Court replied to the attorney:

The conduct for which Moore was sanctioned traces back to November 23rd, 2016. On that date, the defendants served their first set of interrogatories, requests for production of documents, and requests for admissions on plaintiffs Peggy Shumpert and Charles Foster.  The plaintiffs timely served Shumpert and Foster’s responses to the requests for admission.  However, they did not serve their responses for the interrogatories or requests for production at that time. On January 11th, 2017, well after the plaintiffs’ responses were due, defense counsel sent a letter demanding that the plaintiffs serve their responses to the delinquent interrogatories and requests for production within ten days of the letter’s receipt. The letter went unanswered, as did the plaintiffs’ extended deadline for serving their discovery responses.

The defendants filed their first motion to compel on January 25th, 2017.  On the heels of  that motion, the plaintiffs served their responses to the outstanding interrogatories and requests for production. Evidently, the plaintiffs’ responses were inadequate in many regards, and the parties conferred in an attempt to resolve the discovery issues without court intervention. A resolution proved impossible, and the defendants filed their second motion to compel on February 21st, 2017. Subsequently, the court noticed a hearing on the two motions to compel, which was held
on March 21st, 2017....

Moore attributes his failure to provide complete and timely discovery responses to two unforeseen circumstances. He claims to have received several death threats during the pertinent time period, which stem from another case involving the state flag of Mississippi.  Moore also explains that his wife suffered from a severe and prolonged illness around the same time.

Although sympathetic of Moore’s plight, the court cannot classify his failure to timely and  adequately respond to the defendants’ written discovery requests as excusable neglect. “While Rule 60(b) allows relief for ‘mistake, inadvertence…or excusable neglect,’ these terms are not wholly open-ended. ‘Gross carelessness is not enough.’” ... Even though he received a letter from defense counsel inquiring about the tardy discovery responses, Moore never contacted them to explain his situation or to ask for an extension of time. Based on defense counsels’ representations at the hearing, a simple phone call would have sufficed. Therefore, the court finds that Moore’s failure to timely and adequately respond to the defendants’ written discovery requests was the product of gross carelessness, not excusable neglect.

The city of Tupelo also said in its response to the motion for reconsideration that Mr. Moore had used these same excuses to avoid meeting deadlines in other cases.  Earlier post.

Kingfish note: I will re-post what I wrote in an earlier post: Can one imagine Thurgood Marshall or even Chokwe Lumumba, Sr. using this excuse to avoid discovery? Chokwe would get that discovery submitted on time and then brag about how he did it despite the death threats.  Whining about them and then hiding behind them is something he wouldn't do.  Perhaps Mr. Moore is not psychologically suited to practice law since he is arguing he can not handle his cases when someone says something mean or threatening about him.  No Atticus Finch is he.


Documents posted below
Order on Motion to Reconsider: Page 1
Response to motion to reconsider: Page 7
Exhibit 1: Page 11
Exhibit 2: Page 15
Exhibit 3: Page 19
Motion to reconsider: Page 20
Order for sanctions: Page 24
Response to motion to compel: Page 30
Motion to compel #2: Page 34
Motion to compel: Page 48
Media exhibits: Page 48
Second amended complaint: Page 74