### FI LED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT S eptember 6, 20 05 THO MAS K. KAH N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 04- 1605 8 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 02-00187 -CV -W LS -1 JAM ES M. GOODMAN, Pl ai nti ff -Appe llant, ve rs us GE ORG IASO UT HW ES TE RN, Ge orgia Southwestern St at e Uni ve rs it y , MICHAEL HAINES, et al ., D ef en dants -Appe lle es .

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court f or the M idd le D istri ct

of G eo rg ia

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ (S ep te m be r 6, 200 5) Befo re ANDERSON, CARNES an d M ARCUS, Ci rcu it Ju dg es . PE R CU RIA M:2

Ja m es M. G oodm an , a n A fr ic an -A m er ic anm al e pr oc ee din g pr o se , appe al s the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s gr an t of the de fe ndants ’ m oti on f or sum m ar y j udgm en t i n hi s ac tio n a ga ins t G eo rg iaS outhw es te rnS ta te U niv er sity a nd c er ta in i ndi vid

ua ls [hereinaf ter collectively

known as “ GS W ”] for discrim ination on the basis o f ra ce and sex, ra ised pursuan t to Title V II of the Civil Rights Ac t of 1964, as am ended (“ Title V II”) , 42 U .S .C. § 2000 e-2, for f ailing to hire him . On appeal, Goodm an raises procedural a s well a s subs tantive challenges. Pr ocedurally , he argues that the dis tr ic t c ourt c om

m itt ed r ev er sib le e rr or

by m ism an ag ing the dis co ve ry pr oc es s w he n, am ong oth er

thi ngs, it : ( 1) did

not or de r the de fe ndants to pr oduc e al l doc um en ts d at ing a s f

ar ba ck a s 15 y ears or

m or e, inc lud ing of

fi ci al gr ie vanc es , co m pla int s, c ivi l a ct ion s in vol vin g di sc ri m inatio n onthe part of the uni ve rs ity

and the Bo ar d of

Re ge nts ; ( 2) de nie d hi s m oti on f or a n e vid en tiary

he ar ing a nd s tay

of sum m ar y j udgm en t and m oti on f

or part ia l r ec onsi de ratio n; ( 3) w ai te d un til a ft er the dis co ve ry pe ri od b ef

or e ru lin g onhis pe ndi ng m oti ons; a nd ( 4) f ai le d to inv oke Rule 56(f). Substantively , he argues that he presented evidence to show that GS W ’ s legitim ate non-discrim inatory rea sons for hiring another candidate for ea ch posi tio n w er e a pr et ex t f

or r ac e an d se x di sc ri m inatio n. I. C ou rt ’s M an age m en t of D isc ove ry3

W e re vie wadis tr ic t c ourt’ s di sc ove ry r uli ngs fo r ab use of

dis cr et ion . I ra ola & CIA , S.A v . Kim

be rly-Cla rkCo rp ., 32 5 F .3d12 74 , 12 86 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ).

“ D istri ct j udge s are a cc or de d w ide dis cr et ionin ru lin g up on d isc ove ry m oti ons, and ap pe llate r ev ie wis ac co rd ing ly de fe re nti al . ” H ar

ri s v. Ch ap m an , 97 F . 3d 4 99, 506 (1 1thCi r. 199 6) . “ Mor eo ve r, w e w ill not ove rt ur n di sc ove ry

r uli ngs unl es s it

is s h o wn th at th e D i s t ri ct Co u rt ’s ru l i n g re s u l t ed i n s ub s t an t i al h ar m t o th e ap p el l an t ’s case. ” Ir aola, 325 F.3d at 1286 (internal quotation s om itted).

“ Co urts d o and s houl d sh owale nie nc y to pr o se li tig an ts n ot e nj oy ed by tho se w iththe be ne fi t of

ale ga l e duc at ion . Y et

e ve n inthe c as e of

pr o se li tig an ts this leniencydoes not g ive a court license to serve a s de facto counsel for a party .” GJR I nvestm ents v. County of E scam bia, F la., 132 F.3d 1359 , 1369 (11th Cir. 1998 ) (internal c itations om itted). O nce a pro se litigant is in court, “ he is subject to the r el ev an t l aw s and r ule s of the c ourt, inc lud ing the F ed er al Ru le s of Ci vil Procedure. ” Moon v. N ew som e, 863 F.2d 835, 837 (11t h Cir. 1989 ). “ [W e have] w ri tte n th at

dis co ve ry

in T itl e V II c as es is not

w ith out li m its . T he inf

orm at ion soug ht m ust be relevant and not ov erly burdensom e to the respondin g party .” Wright v. Am South Bancorporation, 320 F.3d 1198 , 1205 (11th Cir. 2003). Likew ise, a

district court’ s refusal to grant a c ontin uance of a sum m ary j udgm en t m oti on i n or de r to c ondu ct dis co ve ry

is re vie w ed

f or a n a buse of4

di sc ret io n. Bu rk s v . Am . Cas t Ir on Pip e Co ., 21 2 F .3d13 33 , 13 36 (11 th Cir . 20 00 ). Ru le 56( f) state s: Sh oul d it appe ar f ro m the a ff idavit s of a party opp osi ng the m oti on [ fo r sum m ar y j udgm en t] that the party c an not f or r ea sons st at ed

pr es en t by affidavit fa cts essential to justify the party ’ s oppo sition , the c ourt m ay re fu se the a

ppl ic at ionf

or j udgm en t or

m ay or de r a co nti nuanc e to p er m it affidavits to be obtained or deposit ions to be taken or discovery to be had orm ay m ak e su ch ot he r or de r as is jus t. Fed. R. Civ. P . 56(f

). “ The r ight to a continuance is buil t into th e rules to guard ag ai nst the pr em at

ur e en tr y of sum m ar y j udgm en t. S ubse ct ion( f) a llo w s aparty who has no specific m aterial c ontradicting his adversary ’ s presentation to survive a sum m ar y j udgm en t m oti on i f he pr es en ts v al id r ea sons j ust if y ing his f ai lur e of proof.” Barf

ield v. Br ierton, 883 F.2d 923, 931 (11th Cir. 1989) (internal quot ations and citatio n om itted). Aparty requesting su ch a continuance, howe ver, is r equir ed

to pr es en t an a ff

idavit e xpl ai nin g sp ec if

ic al ly his f ai lur e to r es pond

to the m oti on f

or sum m ar y j udgm en t. I d. “ T he non m ovant m ay not sim ply r el y on vague assertions th at addition al discovery will produce needed but unsp ecified fa ct s bu t m

ust sho wthe c ourt ho wthe stay w ill ope rate to pe rm it him to re but , thr oughdis co ve ry , the m ovant’ s c ont en tio ns. ” I d. ( int er na l qu otatio ns and c itatio n om it te d) .5

T he dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t a buse it s di sc re tio n inhowit m an ag ed the dis co ve ry pr oc es s. A s w e ha ve state d, dis co ve ry in T itl e V II c as es is not

w ith out its li m its , a nd the dis tr ic t c ourt, a ft er nin e m onths, w as w el l w ith in i ts d isc re tio n to de ny Good m an ’s m ot io ns see ki ng fur th er d is co ve ry . See Wrig ht , 32 0 F .3dat 1 20 5. In asking for records and docum ents extendin g as far back as 15 y ears or m ore, G oodm anm ad e dis co ve ry r eque sts that the dis tr ic t c ourt c or re ct ly f ound to be ove rl y br oa d, bur de nsom e, a nd i rr el ev an t. Mo re ove r, G oodm an , on a ppe al , ha s no t tr ie d to ide nti fy

part ic ular ite m s w ith in h is e xpansi ve r eque st n or ha s he pr ovi de d a the or y of r el ev an ce that m igh t narr owthe sc ope of his r eque sts . S ee id. Furthe rm or e, the dis tr ic t c ourt w as w el l w ith in i ts d isc re tio n inde ny ing G oodm an ’ s m oti on f

or a n e vid en tiary

he ar ing a nd s tay

of sum m ar y j udgm en t and m oti on f or part ia l r ec onsi de ratio n. I n th es e m oti ons, G oodm anw as e sse nti al ly requesting th at the court act a s his de facto counsel in con ducting discovery . See GJR I nvestm ents, 132 F.3d at 1369. T he fac t that Goodm an lacked the financial m eans t o c ondu ct

e ff ec tiv e dis co ve ry

doe s no t i m

pose aduty

on the c ourt t o ho ld ane vid en tiary

he ar ing in lie u of

G oodm antakin g hi s own de posi tio ns. Regarding the court’ s decision to wa it until after the discovery

period closed b ef o re ru l i n g o n h i s p en d i n g m o t i o n s , Go o d m an fa i l s t o s h o w h o w t h e c o u rt ’s ru li ng res ul te d i n s ub st an ti al ha rm to hi s ca se . See Ira ol a, 32 5 F .3dat 1 28 6.6

Finally , in order to properly invok e Rule 56(f) , a

party is required to present an af fi da vit e xpl ai nin g sp ec if

ic al ly w hy he f ai le d to r es pond

to the m oti on f

or su m m ary jud gm en t ” Ba rfi el d v . Bri ert on , 88 3 F .2d92 3, 9 31 (11 th Cir . 19 89 ). Goo dm an , ho wev er, fai le d t o p ro vi de su ch an affi da vi t. II. Su m m ary Judgm ent W e re vie wthe dis tr ic t c ourt’ s gr an t of a m oti on f or sum m ar y j udgm en t de novo , “ ap ply ing the sam e le ga l st an dard s th at bound the dis tr ic t c ourt. ” Ja ck son v. Be llS outh T el ec om

m . , 372 F . 3d 1 250, 127 9 ( 11th C ir . 200 4) . S um m ar y j udgm en t is a ppr opr ia te w he n “ the ple ad ing s, de posi tio ns, a nsw er s to int er ro ga tor ie s, a nd adm iss ion s onf

ile , tog ethe r w iththe a ff

idavit s, if a ny , sho wthat the re is no ge nui ne iss ue a s to a ny

m at er ia l f

ac t and tha t the m ovi ng p ar ty is en tit le d to a j udgm en t a s am atte r of

law . ” F ed . R. Ci v. P. 56( c) . Am at er ia l f ac t i s ge nui ne onl y

“ if the e vid en ce is suc h th at ar ea sona

ble j ur y c oul d r et ur n ave rd ic t f

or the nonm ovi ng p ar

ty . ” A nde rs on v . L ibe rty L obby , I nc . , 477 U . S. 242 , 248 , 106 S . Ct . 2505 , 2510, 91 L. Ed. 2d 20 2 (1986). A c c o r d i n g t o th e S up r e me C o u rt , “ ap a rt y s e e k i n g s u mm a ry ju d g men ta l w a ys be ar s th e ini tia l r es pons ibi lity of inf orm ing the dis tr ic t c ourt of the ba sis f

or it s m oti on, a nd i de nti fy ing tho se portio ns o f [the r ec or d] w hic h it be lie ve s de m onstrate the absence of a genuin e issue of m aterial f act. ” Ce lotex Corp. v. Catre tt, 477 U. S.The district cour t below re viewed the rec ord and found that Goodman also fa iled to make 1 a prima fac ie case for disparate impact. After revie wing the rec ord, we ag ree with the lower c ourt’s fi nd ingthat G oo dma

n’ s d isp arate imp a c t c a se wa s w ith out me ri t. 7 317, 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548 , 2553, 91 L. Ed. 2d 26 5 (1986) (quo tation om itted). A fter the m ovant s at isf

ie s th is r equir em en t, the bur de n sh if ts t o “ the a dve rs e party

[ w ho] m ust set forth specific fac ts sho wing that there is a genuine issue for trial. ” Anderson, 477 U. S. at 250, 106 S.C t. at 2511 (quotation om itted). “ [T ] his stand ard pr ovi de s th at

the m er e ex ist en ce of

som e al le ge d f

ac tua l di sput e be tw ee n th e parties will not defeat an otherwise properly suppo rted m otion for sum m ary j udgm ent.” Id. at 247-48, 106 S.Ct. at 2510. T he non-m ovin g party “ m ust do m ore than sim ply show that there is som e m etaphy sical doubt as to the m aterial f acts.” Ma tsu shi taE le c. I ndus . Co . v. Z en ithRa dio Co rp . , 475 U . S. 574 , 586 , 106 S . Ct . 1348 , 1356, 89 L. Ed. 2d 53 8 (1986). W e have held that “ [a] ll reasonable infere nces arising from

the undis puted facts shou ld be m ade in favor of the nonm ovant, but an inf er en ce ba se d onspe cu la tio n and c onj ec tur e is n ot r ea sona ble . ” Bl ac kst on v . Sh ook an d F le tc he r In sul at ionCo . , 764 F . 2d 1 480, 148 2 ( 11th C ir . 198 5) ( ci ta tio n om itted). To establish a prim a fa cie ca se for disparate tr eatm ent, a plaintiff m ay 1 produce circum stantial evidence showing th at: (1) he is a m em ber of a protected cl as s; ( 2) he w as qua lif

ie d f or a nd a ppl ie d f or apos iti on; ( 3) that de spi te his8

qualifications, he wa s rej ected; and (4) a fter his re j ection, the em

ploy er e ither atte m pte d to f ill the pos iti on o r in f

ac t f ill ed it w ithsom eo ne out sid e of the protected class. See W alker v. Mortham , 158 F. 3d 11 77, 1186 (11t h Cir. 1998 ). O nc e a pr im a fa ci e ca se is es ta bli she d, it r ai se s apr es um

pti on tha t the em plo y er dis cr im inate d a ga ins t the e m plo y ee , a nd the e m

plo y er the n ha s th e bur de n to a rt ic ulate ale git im at e, non -d isc ri m inator y r ea son fo r the e m

plo ym en t de ci sio n. Mc D onne ll D ougl as Co rp . v. G re en , 411 U . S. 792 , 802 -0 3, 93 S . Ct . 1817 , 182 4, 36 L . E d. 2d 6 68 ( 1973 ). I f the de fe ndant s uc ce ssf ull y r eb uts the pla int if f' s pr im a fa ci e ca se by

a rt ic ulatin g ale git im at e non- dis cr im inator y r ea son, th en th e p res um

pt io n o f di sc riminat io n i s el im in at ed . Co ope r v. S outhe rnCo . , 390 F. 3d 6 95, 725 ( 11th C ir . 200 4 ) . “ T o surv ive sum m ar y j udgm en t, the pla int if

f m ust then com e forw ard w ith evidence, including the previouslyproduced evidence es ta bli shi ng the pr im a fa ci e ca se , suf fi ci en t t o pe rm it a re as ona ble f ac tf ind er to co nc lud e that the r ea sons giv enby the e m plo y er w er e not the r ea l r ea sons f

or the adve rs e em

plo ym en t de ci sio n. ” I d. ( quot ing Co m bs v . P lantatio n P atte rn s, 106 F. 3d 15 19, 1528 (11t h Cir. 1997 )). Furtherm ore, in order to show pretext, the plaintiff m ust dem onstrate such w eakne sse s, im

pla usi bil iti es , inc onsi ste nc ie s, inc ohe re nc ie s, or c ontra dic tio ns i n the e m plo y er ' s pr of

fe re d le git im at e re as ons fo r its a ct ionthat a r ea sona ble9

fa ct fi nde r co uld

f ind the m unw orthy

of c re de nc e. I d. “ If

the pla int if

f doe s no t pr of fe r suf fi ci en t e vid en ce to cr eate age nui ne iss ue of m at er ia l f

ac t r eg ar din g w he the r ea chof

the de fe ndant e m

plo y er ' s art ic ulate d r ea sons is pr et ex tua l, the em plo y er is en tit le d to sum

m ar y j udgm en t onthe pla int if f' s c la im . ” I d. ( quot ing Ch ap m anv. A I T ransp. , 229 F . 3d, 101 2, 102 4- 25 ( 11th C ir . 200 0) ). W e ar e “ not in th e b us in es s o f ad

jud gi ng whet he r em

pl oym en t d eci si on s ar e p ru de nt or f ai r. In ste ad , [ our ] sol e co nc er n is w he the r unl aw fu l di sc ri m inator y a nim us m oti va te s a ch al le ng edem

pl oym en t d eci si on .” Dam on v. Fl em in g S up erm ark et s o f Fl a., In c., 19 6 F .3d13 54 , 13 61 (11 th Cir . 19 99 ). Re gard ing the use of

sub j ec tiv e ev al ua tio ns o f a j ob c an did at e, w e ha ve state d th at

“ subj ec tiv e ev al ua tio ns o f a j ob c an did at e ar e of te n c ri tic al to the decisionm aking process.” Chapm an, 229 F. 3d at 103 3. W e have further stated ab out the im portanc e of

the int er vie wpr oc es s: A tti tud e, a rt ic ulate ness, a nd e nthusi as m , a s w el l a s a ppe ar an ce , c anbe vitally im portant in su ch a job, y et there are f ewif any way s to gauge su ch qua lit ie s ob

j ec tiv el y or f ro m aw ri tt en ap pli catio n. I nte rv ie w s gi ve pr ospe ct ive e m

plo y er s ach an ce to se e if a n a ppl ic an t ha s th e kin d of personal qualiti es a ser

vice j ob requi re s and can be the best way an em plo y er has to de te rm ine howape rs on i nte ra ct s w ithoth er s. Bo dy langua ge , ton e of voi ce , ey e co nta ct , fa ci al expr es sio ns an d oth er n onve rb al c ue s si gni fi cantl y af fe ct the im

pr es sio n an ap pli cant m ak es on the int er vie w er a nd w ill m ak e on those w hose bus ine ss the c om pany w an ts t o attr ac t or re ta in, but suc h thi ngs ar e hard to quanti fy an d ar tic ulat e with any precision and can on ly

be evaluated subjec tively . P ersonal qualities10

al so f ac tor he av ily int o e m plo ym en t de ci sio ns c onc er nin g su pe rv iso ry or pr of es sio na l po sit ion s. I d . “ Tr a i t s s u c h a s c o mm o n s e n s e , g o o dju d g men t , o r i g i n a l i t y, a mb i t i o n , l o ya l t y, and tact often m

ust be assessed prim arily in a subjec tive fashion, y et they are essential to an ind ividu al's success in a supervisory or professional posi tion.” Id. at 1034 ( int er

na l c itatio ns and quot at ion s om itt ed ). A s w e ha ve not ed , “ it is inconceivable that Cong ress intended anti-dis crim ination statutes to deprive an em plo y er of the abil ity

to re ly on i m portant c ri te ri a in i ts e m

plo ym en t de ci sio ns m er el y be ca use tho se c ri te ri a ar e onl y c ap ab le of

sub j ec tiv e ev al ua tio ns. ” I d. T ur nin g to a nothe r pot en tia l m eans o f es ta bli shi ng p re te xt, e vid en ce that the pla int if f w as qua lif

ie d f or apos iti on i s r ar el y

suf fi ci en t t o de m onstrate pr et ex t: a plaintiff cannot prove pretext by sim ply arguing or even by sho w ing that he w as bett er qua lif ie d th anthe [ pe rs on] w ho r ec ei ve d th e posi tio n he c ove te d. A plai nti ff m ust shownot

m er el y that the de fe ndant’ s e m plo ym en t decisions we re m istaken but that th ey we re in fa ct m ot iv at edby rac e [o r ge nd er]. W e h av e ex pl ai ne d, a plaintiff m ay not establis h that an em ploy er’ s proffer ed re as on i s pr et ex tua l m er el y by question ing the w isd om

of the e m plo y er ’ s r ea sons , at le as t not w he re . . . the r ea son is one that m ight m otivate a rea sonable em ploy er. A le xande r v. F ult on C ounty , 207 F . 3d 1 303, 133 9 ( 11th C ir . 200 0) ( ci tin g C om bs, 106 F. 3d. a t 15 43) . I n othe r w or ds, “ dis pari tie s inqua lif ic at ion s are not

e noug h in and of them selves to dem onstrate discrim inatory intent un less thos e disparities are11

so ap pa ren t as vi rtu al ly to ju m p o ff t he pa ge an d s lap youin th e fac e.” Lee v . GTE Fl o ri d a, In c. , 2 2 6 F. 3 d1 2 4 9 , 1 2 5 4 (1 1 t h Ci r. 2 0 0 0 ) ( qu o t i n g De i n es v . Te x as De p ’t of Protective and Regulatory Ser vs., 164 F.3d 277 , 280 (5th Cir. 1999 )). The e vidence here showed that a se arch c omm ittee for G SW determ ined that G oodm anha d li ttl e or

no e xpe ri en ce w orkin g inac oll eg e/ uni ve rs ity

se tti ng and that he did

not pe rf orm w el l duri ng h is i nte rv ie w . T hus, the bur de n w as on G oodm anto showthat the se r ea sons w er e pr et ex ts f or r ac e or se x di sc ri m inatio n. T he e vid en ce sho w ed

that on e of

the ind ivi dua ls s el ec te d ( Parn el l) ha d a Ma ste r’ s de gr ee in ed

uc at iona nd h ad

e xte nsi ve e xpe ri en ce w orkin g ina co lle ge /un ive rs ity

se tti ng. I n c om

pari son, G oodm an ’ s e xpe ri en ce s w orkin g ina college/univ ersity

setting were less extensive and m ore re m ote in tim e. Moreover, ev enif w e ac ce pt a s tr

ue G oodm an ’ s a sse rt ionthat he w as be tte r qua lif ie d th anthe other candidates, he still failed to show pretext. A s we have stated, a plaintiff cannot prove pretext by

sim ply arguing or even by

showing that he was better qua lif ie d th anthe pe rs on who r ec ei ve d th e posi tio n he c ove te d. A le xande r, 207 F. 3d at 13 39. T he f ac t tha t the uni ve rs ity ’ s hi ri ng d ec isi on w as ba se d inpart on s ubj ec tiv e fa ct or s is not

e vid en ce of

pr et ex t. G oodm an ’ s po or int er vie wpe rf orm an ce is a va lid r ea son fo r the de fe ndants not to hir e him . W e ha ve state d th at sub j ec tiv eGoodman’s r equest for oral a rgument is denied. 2 12 ev al ua tio ns o f a j ob c an did at e ar e of te n c ri tic al to the de ci sio nm ak ing pr oc es s, and that i nte rv ie w s gi ve pr ospe ct ive e m plo y er s ac hanc e to s ee if a n a ppl ic an t ha s th e kindof personal qualities a service j ob requires and can be the best way an em plo y er ha s to de te rm ine howape rs on i nte ra ct s w ithoth er s. C ha pm an , 229 F . 3d at 103 3- 34. Im portantly , G oodm an did no t produce any evidence of sexual bias, and can on ly poi nt to on e que st io n a sk eddu rin g h is in te rv ie w as e vi de nc e o f rac ia l b ia s. How ever, this on e question alo ne fails to show, in light of the whole re cord, that the em ploym ent decision was m otivated byhis race. Ba se d onr ev ie wof

the r ec or d and the part ie s’ br ie fs , w e fi nd n o r ev er sib le er ro r. F or the above state d r ea sons , w e af fi rm the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s gr an t of the de fe ndants ’ sum

m ar y j udgm en t m oti on. AFFIRMED. 2