Nsabumuremyi v. University of Rhode Island

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
JEAN D. NSABUMUREMYI, 	:
Plaintiff, 	:
:
v. 	: 	C.A. No. 25-179MSM
:
UNIVERSITY OF RHODE ISLAND, by and through 	:
its Board Chair, in their Official Capacity only, 	:
Margo L. Cook, 	:
Defendant. 	:
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
PATRICIA A. SULLIVAN, United States Magistrate Judge.
Now pending before the Court are Plaintiff’s motion for continuance and extension of
discovery deadlines (ECF No. 14) and Defendant’s motion to compel Plaintiff to provide initial
disclosures and responses to propounded discovery requests (ECF No. 16). For the reasons that
follow, both motions are granted in part and denied in part.
I. 	Background
With the assistance of legal counsel, well more than a year ago, Plaintiff filed these
serious claims of race-based employment discrimination and retaliation against Defendant in
Washington County Superior Court. Following removal, a motion to dismiss that was denied
without prejudice and the filing of an amended complaint, Plaintiff’s initial disclosures became
due in the fall of 2025,1 yet, despite still being represented by legal counsel, Plaintiff provided
nothing. On September 30, 2025, Defendant propounded interrogatories and document requests,
with responses due on October 30, 2025. ECF No. 16 at 2. Instead of responding, Plaintiff’s
attorney procured a thirty-day extension, and, on October 30, 2025, moved to withdraw based on
1 The precise deadline is not in the record, except that the Court has been advised that Defendant’s Initial
Disclosures were provided to Plaintiff on October 2, 2025.
Case 1:25-cv-00179-MSM-PAS Document 20 Filed 03/02/26 Page 1 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
“a complete breakdown of the attorney client relationship”; in the motion to withdraw, counsel
advised the Court that Plaintiff had been informed that his interrogatory responses and document
production were due by November 29, 2025. ECF No. 10 at 2. After waiting out Plaintiff’s time
to object to his legal counsel’s motion to withdraw (he did not object), the Court granted the
motion to withdraw and Plaintiff became pro se. Text Order of Nov. 18, 2025. Confirming his
entry of appearance as a pro se litigant, Plaintiff promptly filed, and the Court promptly granted,
a motion to extend all deadlines in the pretrial order and his deadline for responding to the
pending discovery by thirty days (setting his discovery response due date as December 29,
2025). See ECF No. 13; Text Order of Nov. 24, 2025. As reasons, Plaintiff advised that he had
just returned (as of November 12, 2025) from a six-week medical leave and was looking to
engage a new attorney. ECF No. 13.
On January 12, 2026, Defendant requested a discovery dispute conference based on
Plaintiff’s ongoing failure to comply with any of his discovery obligations; the conference was
scheduled for January 23, 2026. Shortly before the conference, Plaintiff filed yet another motion
to extend deadlines; this one sought an open-ended extension, with no request for specific dates.
ECF No. 14. As grounds, Plaintiff vaguely alluded to “medical conditions” and his still ongoing
“efforts to secure counsel.” Id. at 2. During the January 23, 2026, conference, the Court firmly
advised Plaintiff of his duty to comply diligently with his discovery obligations, that his failure
to provide discovery put him at risk of dismissal of the case, as well as that his failure to comply
with this duty has already caused a significant delay that has and will continue to impose
prejudice on Defendant. With no commitment from Plaintiff to comply with his discovery
obligations by a date certain, the Court declined to rule – one way or the other – on Plaintiff’s
most recent motion to extend all deadlines and issued the following notice:
Case 1:25-cv-00179-MSM-PAS Document 20 Filed 03/02/26 Page 2 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
Notice of Termination of Discovery Dispute Conference: Based on the conference
held on January 23, 2026, the Court has given leave to Defendant to proceed with
discovery motion(s), including without limitation, motion to compel. Further, for
now, the referred and fully briefed motion of Plaintiff for continuance and
extension of discovery deadlines [ECF No.] 14 shall remain under advisement,
although the Court may rule on it at any time.
Notice of Jan. 23, 2026.
As of the filing of Defendant’s now-pending motion to compel, Plaintiff had still
produced nothing. However, on February 3, 2026, one month before the close of fact discovery
and less than a week before his objection to the motion to compel was due, Plaintiff (for the first
time) provided initial disclosures, answers to some interrogatories, objections to the remaining
interrogatories,2 nineteen documents and a representation that he would provide the remaining
documents on a rolling basis with no advisory regarding when this production would be
complete. ECF Nos. 17-18. Based on this incomplete compliance, Plaintiff argues that
Defendant’s motion to compel should be denied as moot. Defendant’s response, which the Court
finds to be persuasive, counters that significant interrogatories remain unanswered, now shielded
by legally insufficient objections, and that most of the responsive documents remain outstanding.
II. 	Analysis and Ruling
After a claimant’s legal counsel is allowed to withdraw, the law requires that the pro se
plaintiff must respond to discovery requests from the defendant and generally carry out any other
duties and responsibilities related to the litigation with all diligence. Lynch v. Novant Med.
Grp., Inc., Civil No. 3:08CV340-MR-DSC, 2009 WL 1259271, at *1-2 (W.D.N.C. May 5,
2009); see Severe v. Geovera Ins. Co., Case No. 6:22-cv-1178-PGB-LHP, 2023 WL 2351662, at
2 Plaintiff objected to Interrogatories 12 to 25 for an array of reasons and provided no answers, including based on
the erroneous and improper objection that the set exceeds the number of interrogatories (twenty-five) permitted by
Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a)(1).
Case 1:25-cv-00179-MSM-PAS Document 20 Filed 03/02/26 Page 3 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
*1 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 3, 2023) (plaintiff’s pro se status does not absolve her from duty to litigate
case, to respond to discovery as appropriate, and to comply with all applicable Court Orders,
Local Rules and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure). If a claimant fails to discharge this duty, he
risks sanctions that can include paying the opposing party’s fees and costs and may also include
dismissal of the lawsuit with prejudice. Lynch, 2009 WL 1259271, at *1-2.
In this case, the Court is very troubled by the pattern of delay since the filing of the case
over a year ago, both while Plaintiff was represented and since he became pro se. Focusing on
what is now in issue, the Court has carefully reviewed Plaintiff’s objections to Interrogatories 12
to 25 and overrules all of them, except that the timing of Plaintiff’s duty to make his expert
disclosure (Interrogatory 25) is governed by the Court’s pretrial scheduling order. Further, to the
extent that Plaintiff has withheld responsive information and documents because they contain
privileged and confidential medical information, the Court overrules the objection but also orders
that all such confidential medical information and documents must be produced with access
limited to Defendant’s attorneys, their staff, in-house attorneys and experts, as well as with use
restricted to this case. The Court further finds that Plaintiff’s medical justification for his failure
to comply with his duty as a plaintiff to respond diligently to discovery (ECF No. 17-2) impacted
only a short period in the fall of 2025 and does not provide good cause to justify the balance of
the substantial delay caused by Plaintiff’s conduct.3 Based on the foregoing, the Court orders
that Plaintiff must complete compliance with all pending discovery (including the providing of
3 Based on Plaintiff’s filings and his appearance before the Court during the discovery dispute conference, the Court
finds that he is well qualified to conduct this litigation and diligently discharge his duties as a pro se litigant.
Case 1:25-cv-00179-MSM-PAS Document 20 Filed 03/02/26 Page 4 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
complete answers to Interrogatories 12 to 254 and the complete production of documents) by
March 20, 2026.
With discovery finally flowing, the Court is now ready to address Plaintiff’s motion to
extend pretrial deadlines. ECF No. 14. To the extent that the motion seeks an extension of
Plaintiff’s obligation to respond to the pending discovery, the motion is denied. To the extent
that the motion seeks an extension of the pretrial deadlines, the motion is granted as follows:
Factual Discovery to close by April 10, 2026;
Plaintiff Expert Disclosures shall be made by May 11, 2026;
Defendant Expert Disclosures shall be made by June 15, 2026;
Expert Discovery to close by July 15, 2026; and
Dispositive and other non-discovery motions due by August 17, 2026.
Further extension will not be lightly granted.
III. 	Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion for continuance and extension of discovery
deadlines (ECF No. 14) and Defendant’s motion to compel Plaintiff to provide initial disclosures
and responses to previously-propounded discovery requests (ECF No. 16) are GRANTED IN
PART AND DENIED IN PART. The motion to compel is granted to the extent that Plaintiff is
ordered to provide complete interrogatory responses to Interrogatories 12 to 25 and to produce
all remaining responsive documents on or before March 20, 2026, provided that his expert
disclosures are not due until the pretrial scheduling order deadline and confidential medical
records must be produced with access and use restricted as described above. The motion to
4 Plaintiff’s right to object based on the attorney client privilege or work product doctrine is preserved to the extent
that Plaintiff timely complies with the requirement to produce a privilege log pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5).
Case 1:25-cv-00179-MSM-PAS Document 20 Filed 03/02/26 Page 5 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

6
extend deadlines is granted to the extent that Pretrial deadlines shall be reset as set forth above.
Otherwise, the motions are denied.
/s/ Patricia A. Sullivan
PATRICIA A. SULLIVAN
United States Magistrate Judge
March 2, 2026
Case 1:25-cv-00179-MSM-PAS Document 20 Filed 03/02/26 Page 6 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>