Sow v. Sysco Corp et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
PAPA M. SOW,
Plaintiff,
v. 	Civil Action 2:23-cv-4125
District Judge Algenon L. Marbley
Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Jolson
SYSCO CORP., et al.,
Defendants.
OPINION & ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel and for Sanctions. (Doc. 69). For the
following reasons, the Motion is DENIED.
I. 	BACKGROUND
A brief summary is enough here. For about fifteen years, Plaintiff Papa M. Sow worked
at Defendant SYGMA Network, Inc.’s (“Sygma”) warehouses. (Doc 27 at ¶ 8). On November
30, 2022, Sygma terminated Plaintiff’s employment. 	(Id. at ¶¶ 8, 11). 	Plaintiff’s Amended
Complaint alleges that in doing so, Sygma discriminated against him because of his race and age
in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Age Discrimination in Employment
Act of 1967. (Id. at ¶ 1).
Discovery in this case lasted many months. 	In December 2025, Plaintiff filed several
duplicative and procedurally improper motions related to discovery, most of which the Court
denied. 	(See Doc. 57). 	The Court eventually allowed full briefing on one: a motion to compel
responses to certain discovery requests. (Id.; see also Docs. 58, 59, 61, 52, 53, 54, 65). The Court
granted that motion in part and ordered Defendant to produce particular documents and
information. (Doc. 66). Defendant certified that it did so. (Doc. 67). In the meantime, Defendant
Case: 2:23-cv-04125-ALM-KAJ Doc #: 71 Filed: 05/06/26 Page: 1 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>

2
also filed a motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 68).
Now, Plaintiff―several days after the parties’ deadline to file dispositive motions―seeks
an order compelling Defendant to provide even more discovery. (Doc. 69; see also Doc. 70 (status
report repeating the same)). He also asks that the Court impose unspecified sanctions. (Doc. 69).
The Court need not wait for full briefing on this matter, as it is easily resolved on Plaintiff’s Motion
alone.
II. 	STANDARD
Under Rule 26(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[p]arties may obtain discovery
regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense and proportional
to the needs of the case.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). “Determining the proper scope of discovery
falls within the broad discretion of the trial court.” Gruenbaum v. Werner Enter., Inc., 270 F.R.D.
298, 302 (S.D. Ohio 2010) (citing Lewis v. ACB Business Servs., Inc., 135 F.3d 389, 402 (6th Cir.
1998)). “The proponent of a motion to compel discovery bears the initial burden of proving that
the information sought is relevant.” 	Id. at 302 (citation omitted). 	“While relevancy is broad,
‘district courts have discretion to limit the scope of discovery [when] the information sought is
overly broad or would prove unduly burdensome to produce.’” Plain Local Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ.
v. DeWine, 335 F.R.D. 115, 119 (N.D. Ohio 2020) (alteration in original) (quoting Surles ex rel.
Johnson v. Greyhound, Lines, Inc., 474 F.3d 288, 305 (6th Cir. 2007)). 	At base, “the scope of
discovery is within the sound discretion of the trial court.” 	Stumph v. Spring View Physician
Practices, LLC, No. 3:19-CV-00053-LLK, 2020 WL 68587, at *2 (W.D. Ky. Jan. 7, 2020)
(quotation marks and citations omitted).
III. 	DISCUSSION
As noted in the Court’s prior discovery order, it is clear that Defendant produced a
Case: 2:23-cv-04125-ALM-KAJ Doc #: 71 Filed: 05/06/26 Page: 2 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>

3
significant amount of discovery to cure Plaintiff’s previously identified deficiencies. (Doc. 66 at
2). And Defendant also complied with the Court’s order to supplement its responses to Plaintiff’s
Interrogatory No. 4 and Request for Production No. 6. (Doc. 67). Defendant further certified its
supplemental responses. (Id.). Still, Plaintiff is not satisfied.
Plaintiff asserts that as for Interrogatory No. 4, he “remains concerned that relevant records
may exist in additional systems, custodians’ files, or complaint-tracking systems.” (Doc. 69 at 2).
As for Request for Production No. 6, he “disputes whether all responsive materials have been
produced.” (Id.). Plaintiff additionally tries to raise issues the Court already resolved. (Compare
id. at 2 (asserting Defendant’s production remains deficient because it did not produce a statement
from Wade Blackbourn) with Doc. 66 at 4 (denying Plaintiff’s request to compel a statement from
Mr. Blackbourn); compare Doc. 69 at 3 (stating comparator records appear incomplete) with Doc.
66 at 8 (denying Plaintiff’s request to compel additional comparator records)). 	He also claims
Defendant’s statement of facts conflicts with other evidence. (Doc. 69 at 3).
At base, Plaintiff’s discovery complaints appear grounded in little more than speculation.
He provides no factual basis for his belief that Defendant’s discovery responses are deficient.
Contrary to his beliefs, Defendant has certified its supplemental responses. 	(Doc. 67). 	And, in
letters to Plaintiff, Defendant’s counsel informed him that no deficiencies remain. (See Doc. 69-
1 at 3–8). 	Simply put, the Court cannot compel discovery based on Plaintiff’s unsubstantiated
suspicions. Conley v. United States, No. 2:10-CV-444, 2011 WL 5326133, at *2 (S.D. Ohio Nov.
4, 2011) (“A party may not move to compel discovery on the basis of a mere suspicion that the
producing party has additional information that it failed to disclose.”); see also Hickman v. Taylor,
329 U.S. 495, 507 (1947) (“[W]e cannot assume, that the tug owners or Fortenbaugh were
incomplete or dishonest in the framing of their answers.”); Harris v. Advance Am. Cash Advance
Case: 2:23-cv-04125-ALM-KAJ Doc #: 71 Filed: 05/06/26 Page: 3 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>

4
Centers, Inc., 288 F.R.D. 170, 175 (S.D. Ohio 2012) (“[P]laintiff cannot compel defendant to
create a document in response to his requests for production of documents[.]”). Further, the Court
need not spend time parsing issues it already decided. Finally, to the extent Plaintiff attempts to
combat Defendant’s presentation of the facts, those arguments are not relevant to discovery
requests.
Ultimately, the Court is satisfied that Defendant sufficiently responded to Plaintiff’s
discovery requests. Nothing in Plaintiff’s Motion or status report changes that. For these reasons,
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel and for Sanctions (Doc. 69) is DENIED. At this juncture, Plaintiff’s
time is best spent responding to Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. 68) by the May
14 deadline, rather than filing frivolous and untimely discovery motions.
IV. 	CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel and for
Sanctions (Doc. 69).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: 	May 6, 2026 	/s/ Kimberly A. Jolson
KIMBERLY A. JOLSON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case: 2:23-cv-04125-ALM-KAJ Doc #: 71 Filed: 05/06/26 Page: 4 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>