BROWN v PUBLIX SUPERMARKET 1427

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TALLAHASSEE DIVISION
TIMOTHY E. BROWN,
Plaintiff,
v. 	Case No.: 4:26cv44-MW/MAF
PUBLIX SUPERMARKET 1427,
Defendant.
_________________________/
ORDER ACCEPTING IN PART AND REJECTING IN PART
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This Court has considered, without hearing, the Magistrate Judge's Report and
Recommendation, ECF No. 33, and has also reviewed de novo Plaintiff’s objections,
ECF No. 35. As noted in the report and recommendation, Plaintiff has repeatedly
failed to comply with his discovery obligations, including failing to comply with a
court Order compelling discovery, ECF No. 23. Plaintiff’s common 	refrain,
however, is that his failure to comply is not in bad faith and that he is merely ignorant
of his responsibilities as a pro se plaintiff. Moreover, Plaintiff’s objections assert he
has attempted in good faith to comply with discovery, including by appearing and
participating at depositions on July 9, 2026 (after the pending motion for sanctions
was filed). ECF No. 35 at 2. Of course, his assertion of acting in good faith is
undermined by his conduct in failing to comply with his obligations and a clear order
compelling discovery, which explained his obligations.
Case 4:26-cv-00044-MW-MAF Document 36 Filed 07/24/26 Page 1 of 3

2
Although the Magistrate Judge understandably recommends dismissal with
prejudice as a sanction for Plaintiff’s obstinate failure to comply with his discovery
obligations and a court Order regarding the same, this is “the most severe Rule 37
sanction and is not favored.” Phipps v. Blakeney, 8 F.3d 788, 790 (11th Cir. 1993).
But, unlike Phipps, this is not a case where the plaintiff flat-out expressly refused to
comply with discovery, including appearing at his own deposition. See id. (“Then
plaintiff declared, after he had been flatly threatened with dismissal, that he ‘had no
intention’ of appearing at his own deposition or at discovery conferences.”). While
a close call, this Court believes a lesser sanction is appropriate rather than the
dismissal with prejudice that the Magistrate Judge recommends.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED:
The report and recommendation, ECF No. 33, is accepted in part and
rejected in part, as this Court’s opinion. Defendant’s motion for sanctions, ECF
No. 31, is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The motion is GRANTED
insofar as this Court is ordering sanctions for Plaintiff’s continued noncompliance
with his discovery obligations but DENIED to the extent that Defendant requests
dismissal with prejudice. Instead, Plaintiff is prohibited from relying on any witness,
document, category of damages, computation 	of damages, medical provider,
employment 	information, 	social 	media 	evidence, 	prior 	proceeding, 	or 	other
Case 4:26-cv-00044-MW-MAF Document 36 Filed 07/24/26 Page 2 of 3

3
information that Plaintiff failed to disclose in discovery or his Rule 26(a)(1)
disclosures. In addition, it is deemed established, for the purposes of this action, that
Plaintiff has no documents responsive to Defendant’s First Request for Production
except those already properly produced to Defendant. Plaintiff is prohibited from
introducing at summary judgment, hearing, or trial any document or information not
properly produced to Defendant by the Court-ordered deadline.
Finally, this action is STAYED until Plaintiff pays the $439.00 sanction
previously imposed, and which is due on July 31, 2026. see ECF No 30. Plaintiff
may purge the stay sooner upon payment of the sanction. This Court leaves the
question of any further extension for the payment deadline to the Magistrate Judge’s
consideration, see ECF No. 34 (pending motion for extension of deadline to pay
sanction).
This matter is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings.
SO ORDERED on July 24, 2026.
s/Mark E. Walker 	____
United States District Judge
Case 4:26-cv-00044-MW-MAF Document 36 Filed 07/24/26 Page 3 of 3