FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEV EN T HC IRC U IT APRIL19, 2005 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 04- 14644 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 03 -001 56 -C V -P -S H O L L I S B . B A R R O N , P la in tif f - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s F E D E R A L R E S E R V E B A N K O F A T L A N T A , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lle e .

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e N o r th e rn D i s tr i c to f A l ab a ma

_________________________ ( A pr i l 19, 2005) B efo re B IR C H , B A R K E T T an d W IL S O N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: H ol l i s B a rr on, a n A f

r i c a n- A m e r i c a n m a l e , appe a l s the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s gr a nt2

o f th e F e d e r a l R e s e rv e B a n k o f A tla n ta ’s m o tio n f

o rs u m m a ry ju d g m e n t o n h is 42 U . S . C . §§ 19 81 , 20 00 e e t s e q . em p l o ym en td i scri m i n at i o n cl ai m s. H e al so appe a l s the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s de c i s i ons ( 1) t o gr a ntthe m ot i on t o s e ve rthe c l a i m s of s i x othe rpl a i nt i f

f s f r om the c i vi l a c t i on a ga i ns tthe F e de r a l R e s e rve B a nk of A tla n ta( “F R B A ” ) , a n d ( 2 ) to d e n y h is m o tio n s to s tr ik e d e c la r a tio n s f o rf a ilu r e to di s c l os e i nf

orm a t i on unde rF e d. R . C i v. P . 26( a ) . U pon r e vi e w of the r e c or d a nd c o n s id e r a tio n o f

th e p a r tie s ’ b r ie f

s , w e d is c e rn n o r e v e r s ib le e rr o r . A . Emp l o y me n tD i s c r i mi n a t i o n Cl a i ms B a rr o n f ir s t a r g u e s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t e rr e d in c o n c lu d in g th a t h is 4 2 U . S . C . § 1 9 8 1 cl ai m s w ere su b j ectt o a tw o -year st atu t e o f l i m i t at i o n s b ecau se i n J ones v . R . R . D onne l le

y & Sons C o. , 541 U . S . 369, 124 S . C t . 1836 ( 2004) , the Su p r e me Co u r th e l d th a tth e f o u r - y e a rs t a tu t e o f

l i mi t a t i o n s u n d e r2 8 U . S. C. § 1 65 8 app l i ed t o cl ai m s c ov er ed by the 19 91 am endm entt o § 19 81 , w hi ch i ncl ud ed fa i l ure t o p rom ot e c l ai m s. S ec on d, B arron con t ends thatthe court erroneou sl y m ade afi nd i ng on a di sposi t i ve and con t es t ed fa ctby det erm i ni ng that F R B A em pl oyee A shl eyP atri ck’ s prom ot i on t o a G ra de 27 F i nanci al S ervi ce s O pera t i on s A nal ys tpo si t i on fr om a G ra de 26 Q ual i ty C on trol A nal ys tpo si t i on w as a c ar ee r progres si on i nst ea d o f avaca ncy. T hi rd, B arron argues thatthe di stri ct courterre d i n d et erm i ni ng thatF R B A art i cul at ed a l egi t i m at e, no nd i sc ri m i nat ory3

reaso n fo r h i ri n g M i ch ael Jad w i n as a S u p erv i so r i n C h eck C o l l ect i o n s b ecau se F R B A di d n otspec i fyho w the i nt ernal ca nd i dat es w er e e xam i ned for the C heck C ol l e c t i on S upe rvi s orpos i t i on. F our th, B a rr on s t a t e s , i n a n i s s ue he a di ng t o a s e c tio n o f

h is ap p e lla te b r ie f

, th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t e rr e d in d e te rm in in g th a t h is f a i l u r e t o a me n d h i s EEO C c h a r g e a l l o w e d f o rs u mma ry j u d g me n to n th e To mmy B as w el l , Je re m y W hi t l ey , and B l ake A nd rus c l ai m s. H ow ever , B arron then argues a c om pl et el y di ff

er enti ss ue by as se rt i ng thathi s c om pl ai ntw as suff i ci entun der F e d . R . C iv . P . 8 , a n dif th e d is tr ic t c o u r t r e q u ir e d h e ig h te n e d p le a d in g , it s h o u ld have al l ow ed B arron t o am end h i s c om pl ai ntun der F ed. R . C i v. P . 15 (a ). We r e v i e w de nov o ad is tr ic t c o u r t’s d e c is io n to g r a n t s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t. M a y n a r d v . B o a r d o f R eg e n ts , 3 4 2 F .3 d 1 2 8 1 , 1 2 8 8 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) . “A p a r ty s e e k in g s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t m u s t d e m o n s tr a te th a t ‘th e r e is n o g e n u in e is s u e a s to a ny m a t e r i a l f

a c ta nd tha tthe m ovi ng pa r ty i s e nt i t l e d t o aj udgm e nta s am a tt e rof la w .’ T h e m o v in g p a r ty b e a r s th e in itia l b u r d e n o f in f o rm in g th e c o u r t o f

th e b a s is for i t s m ot i on and o f i dent i fy i ng tho se m at er i al s thatdem on stra t e the abse nce of a g e n u in e is s u e o f

m a te r ia l f

a c t.” R i c e - L am arv . C i t y of Ft . L aude rdale , Fla. , 23 2 F . 3d 83 6, 84 0 (11 th C i r. 20 00 ) ( ci t at i on s om i tt ed). In det erm i ni ng w hether g e n u in e is s u e s o f

m a te r ia l f

a c t e x is t, w e r e s o lv e a ll a m b ig u itie s a n d d r a w a ll r e a s o n ab le in f

e r e n c e s in f

a v o ro f th e n o n - m o v in g p a r ty . I d. “ T he c our tm a y not4

w e ig h e v id e n c e to r e s o lv e af a c tu a l d is p u te ; if

ag e n u in e is s u e o f

m a te r ia l f

a c t is pres ent , the courtm ustdeny sum m ary j ud gm ent . ” H ol i f i e ld v . R e no , 115 F . 3d 15 55 , 15 61 (11th C i r. 19 97 ).

1 . 4 2 U . S. C. § 1 9 8 1 Cl a i ms B a rr on ha s w a i ve d hi s c l a i m tha tthe f our - y e a rs t a tut e l i m i t a t i ons pe r i od unde r28 U . S . C . § 1658 appl i e d t o hi s § 1981 f a i l ur e t o pr om ot e a l l e ga t i ons b e c a u s e h e d id n o t r a is e th e a r g u m e n t w ith th e d is tr ic t c o u r t. See C oo per , 390 F . 3d at7 2 7 n . 1 9 , 7 3 4 . W h i l e th e S u p rem e C o u rti ssu ed i t s Jones de c i s i on a f t e rB a rr on f ile d h is b r ie f

in r e s p o n s e to F R B A ’s m o tio n f o rs u m m a ry ju d g m e n t, Jo n es s h o u ld no tchange thi s C ou rt ’ s w ai ver a nal ys i s bec ause the ar gu m entthatthe four-y ea r l i m i t a t i ons pe r i od appl i e d t o § 1981 c l a i m s w a s notanove l a r gum e ntw he n B a rr on f ile d h is o p p o s itio n b r ie f . See e . g. , T

aylor v. A la. Inter tri ba l C ou nci l T i t le I V J . T. P. A. , 261 F . 3d 1032, 1034 ( 11th C i r . 2001) ( r e f us i ng t o c ons i de rthe a r gum e nt tha tthe s t a tut e of

l i m i t a t i ons on appe l l a nt ’ s § 1981 e m pl oy m e ntdi s c r i m i na t i on cl ai m w as th e fo u r year st atu t e o f l i m i t at i o n s u n d er 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 6 5 8 b ecau se i m m uni ty appl i e d) . T he r e f or e , B a rr on c oul d ha ve a r gue d the s t a tut e of l i m i t a t i ons is s u e b e f o r e th e d is tr ic t c o u r t, b u t h e d id n o t. A c c o r d in g ly , h e h a s w a iv e d th is is s u e o n ap p e a l.

2 . Ti t l e V I I Cl a i ms5

U nde rT i t l e V I I , i ti s unl a w f ul “ t o f a i l orr e f us e t o hi r e ort o di s c ha r ge a ny in d iv id u a l, o ro th e rw is e to d is c r im in a te a g a in s t a n y in d iv id u a l w ith r e s p e c t to h is com pensat i on , t erm s, cond i t i on s, or pri vi l eges of em pl oym ent , because of s uch i ndi vi dua l ’ s r a c e . . . . ” 42 U . S . C . § 2000e - 2( a ) ( 1) . A c l a i m of r a c e di s c r i m i na t i on c a n b e m a d e w ith d ir e c t o rc ir c u m s ta n tia l e v id e n c e . See M a yn a rd , 34 2 F . 3d at 1288. I n ac i r c um s t a nt i a l e vi de nc e c a s e , “ [ t ] o e s t abl i s h apr i m af a c i e c a s e of d i scri m i n at o ry fai l u re t o p ro m o t e, a p l ai n t i ff [g en eral l y] m u stp ro v e: (1 ) th ath e i s a m e m be rof

apr ot e c t e d c l a s s ; ( 2) tha the w a s qua l i f i e d f ora nd appl i e d f

orthe prom ot i on ; (3) thathe w as re j ec t ed; and (4) thatother e qu al l y or l es s qual i fi ed em pl oyee s w ho w er e notm em bers of the prot ec t ed cl as s w er e prom ot ed. ” D enney v . C i t y of A lbany , 24 7 F . 3d 11 72 , 11 83 (11th C i r. 20 01 ) ( ci t at i on and i nt ernal q u o ta tio n o m itte d ) . A n e m pl oy e e w ho ha s notappl i e d f oraj ob ope ni ng c a n s t i l l e s t abl i s h a pri m a f aci e ca se of di sc ri m i nat i on i n tw o ci rc um st ance s. F i rs t , “ no napp l i ca nt s m ay be ent i t l ed t o rel i ef

w here the em pl oyer ’ s c l ea r pol i cyof excl usi on w ou l d m ake a n appl i c a t i on aus e l e s s e xe r c i s e , ” w hi c h r e qui r e s atw o- pa r ts how i ng: ( 1) “ [ the nonappl i c a nt ] w oul d ha ve appl i e d butf ordi s c r i m i na t i on” ; a nd ( 2) “ [ the no napp l i ca nt ] w ou l d h ave been di sc ri m i nat ori l y r ej ec t ed had h e app l i ed. ” C ox v. A m e r i c an C as t

I r on P i pe C o. , 784 F . 2d 1546, 1560 ( 11th C i r . 1986) . S e c ond,6

w h en n o p o l i cy o f ex cl u si o n o r fo rm al n o t i ce o f a j o b ex i st , an em p l o yer “ h as a duty t o c ons i de ra l l thos e w ho m i ghtr e a s onabl y be i nt e r e s t e d, ” s o ap r im a fa c ie c a s e w i l l b e e s t ab l i s h e d w h e n th e e mp l o y e e s h o w s th a t“ th e c o mp a n y h a d s o me re as on or du ty t o con si der hi m for the po st . ” I d. O nce the pl ai nt i ff

es t abl i shes a pri m a f

aci e c a s e o f

d is c r im in a to ry f

a ilu r e to prom ot e, the defendanthas the bu rden t o p rodu ce a l egi t i m at e, no n-di sc ri m i nat ory r e a s o n f o rits d e c is io n . I

d. “[ T ]h e d e f

e n d a n t’s b u r d e n o f

r e b u tta l is e x c e e d in g ly l i gh t . . . . A tthi s s t age of the i nq ui ry , the defendantneed no tpers uade the court tha ti t s pr of

f e r e d r e a s ons a r e l e gi t i m a t e ; the de f e nda nt ’ s bur de n i s m e r e l y one of prod uct i on , no tproo f. ” C oope rv . Southe rn C o. , 39 0 F . 3d 69 5, 72 5 (11 th C i r. 2 0 0 4 ) ( c ita tio n a n d in te rn a l q u o ta tio n o m itte d ) . “I f s u c h ar e a s o n is p r o d u c e d , a pl a i nt i f f the n ha s the ul t i m a t e bur de n of pr ovi ng the r e a s on t o be apr e t e xtf or un l aw ful di sc ri m i nat i on . ” D enney , 247 F . 3d a t1183.

a. P rom ot i on of A shl eyP atri ck B e c a us e B a rr on di d notappl y f orthe pos i t i on tha tP a tr i c k r e c e i ve d, he coul d o nl y e st abl i sh a pri m a f aci e c a s e by s how i ng ( 1) ac l e a rpol i c y of e xc l us i on m a de i tf ut i l e f orhi m t o appl y , or( 2) the c om pa ny ha d aduty t o c ons i de rhi m f or th e p o s itio n . Se e C ox , 78 4 F . 2d at15 60 . B arron argues thatthe di stri ctcourt i m prop er l y m ade afa ctual fi nd i ng thatP atri ck’ s prom ot i on w as a r es ul tof a c ar ee r7

p r o g r e s s io n d e s p ite c o n tr a ry e v id e n c e th a t P a tr ic k ’s p r o m o tio n w a s n o t in f a c t a p r o g r e s s io n . A d is tr ic t c o u r t is n o t to w e ig h e v id e n c e to r e s o lv e af a c tu a l d is p u te . Se e H o lifie ld , 11 5 F . 3d at15 61 . A cc ordi ng l y, w e a gree thatthe di stri ctcourt s h o u ld n o t h a v e f

o u n d th a t P a tr ic k ’s p r o m o tio n c o n s titu te d ac a r e e rp r o g r e s s io n in l i gh tof the confl i ct i ng evi dence. H ow e ve r , thi s e rr orw a s ha rm l e s s be c a us e , r e ga r dl e s s of the ty pe of prom ot i on , B arron can no tes t abl i sh a pri m a f aci e c a s e of

di s c r i m i na t i on on the ba s i s of r a c e . S pe c i f

i c a l l y , B a rr on pr ovi de s no e vi de nc e tha tF R B A ha d ar e a s on orduty t o c ons i de rhi m f orthe G r a de 27 F i na nc i a l S e rvi c e s A na l y s tO pe r a t i ons pos i t i on tha tP a tr i c k r e c e i ve d ortha tac l e a rpol i c y of e xc l us i on e xi s t e d. Se e C ox , 784 F . 2d a t1560. I ns t e a d, the e vi de nc e s ugge s t s tha tB a rr on w a s notqua l i f i e d f or th e p o s itio n a n d F R B A h a d n o d u ty to c o n s id e rh im f o rth e G r a d e 2 7 p o s itio n . F ir s t, B a rr o n h a d n o e x p e r ie n c e a s aQ u a lity C o n tr o l A n a ly s t. B a rr o n w a s in the P r ot e c t i on D e pa r tm e nt , w hi c h pr ot e c t e d F R B A ’ s B i rm i ngha m br a nc h a nd em pl oyee s, and there fore hi s dut i es w ou l d h ave been di ff er entfr om tho se of a Q ual i ty C on trol A nal ys t . W i tho utthi s e xp er i ence , B arron w as no tqu al i fi ed for a G r a de 27 F i na nc i a l S e rvi c e s O pe r a t i ons A na l y s tpos i t i on be c a us e P a tr i c k’ s a nd S m i th’ s e xpe r i e nc e s i ndi c a t e tha tthe G r a de 26 Q ua l i ty C ontr ol A na l y s tpos i t i on w a s apr e r e qui s i t e f

orthe G r a de 27 pos i t i on. A l s o, B a rr on f a i l s t o poi ntt o a nyIn Myrick s v. F edera l R eserveBa nk

of A tla nta , No. 04-12246 (11th Cir. March 7, 1 2005), wevacated and remande d the district court’s grant of summar y judgment in favor of FRB A where another African America n employee alleg ed discrimination re lating to the promotion of Patrick. Notably, in Myrick s , the district court stopped its analysis after c on c lus ive ly

determiningthat th epromo tio n w a s a c are er p ro gre ssi on

and henc eun availa

bleto B arron . In th eins tant c a se , th edis tric t c ourt alsoerron e ou sly

de c ide d th at th epo sition wa s a career progression promotion and thus unavailable to Ba rron, but continued theanalysis and reached theconclusion that re g ardle ss of the availability of the Grade 27 position Ba rron did not prod uc ee videnc ethat hewa s q ualif ie d f or thepo sition

or that F RB A h a d a

duty to c on sider him. 8 e vi de nc e i ndi c a t i ng tha thi s e xpe r i e nc e a s as upe rvi s ori n the C he c k C ol l e c t i on a nd P aym en tS erv i ces D ep artm en t s p rep ared h i m fo r th e G rad e 2 7 p o si t i o n . F i n al l y, B arron w as vi ew ed as bei ng di ff i cul tt o w ork w i th atF R B A . B arron w as r e p e a te d ly to ld to im p r o v e h is in te rp e r s o n a l s k ills a n d c o m m u n ic a tio n . P r io rto m ovi ng t o the P r ot e c t i on D e pa r tm e nt , B a rr on r e c e i ve d tw o c ons e c ut i ve “ B e l ow R equi re m ent s” perf

orm ance ra t i ng s. A cc ordi ng t o A nd re A nd er son, the form er Br a n c h M a n a g e ro f

th e Bi rmi n g h a m Br a n c h a n d c u rr e n tV i c e Pr e s i d e n to f FRBA i n A t l a nt a , “ B e l ow ” R e qui r e m e nt s ” r a t i ngs of t e n r e s ul t e d i n de m ot i on or d is c ip lin a ry a c tio n u p to a n d in c lu d in g te rm in a tio n . T he r e f or e , the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s f a c tua l f i ndi ng r e ga r di ng the “ a va i l abi l i ty ” of the G ra de 27 po si t i on w as harm l es s e rr or because w e a gree w i th the di stri ctcourt thatB arron w as no tqu al i fi ed for the prom ot i on re gardl es s of w hether i tw as a va i l abl e . M or e ove r , e ve n i f B a rr on w a s a r guabl y qua l i f i e d f orthe pos i t i on, 1 B a rr on ha s nots how n tha tF R B A ha d ar e a s on orduty t o c ons i de rhi m f orthe pos i t i on. F ur the r , e ve n i f F R B A ha d c ons i de r e d B a rr on f orthe pos i t i on, B a rr on9

ha s notof

f e r e d a ny e vi de nc e t o s how tha t , c om pa r e d t o hi m , P a tr i c k w a s e qua l l y or le s s q u a lif

ie d . W e c on cl ud e thatP atri ck’ s prom ot i on t o a G ra de 27 F i nanci al S ervi ce s A na l y s tO pe r a t i ons pos i t i on i s note vi de nc e of di s c r i m i na t i on be c a us e B a rr on f a ile d to s h o w th a t h e w a s q u a lif ie d f o rth e p o s itio n o rth a t F R B A h a d ad u ty to consi der hi m for the po si t i on as he had n o p ri or experi ence i n the po si t i on and w as in th e P r o te c tio n D e p a r tm e n t w h e n F R B A p r o m o te d P a tr ic k .

b . H ir in g o f

M ic h a e l J a d w in A s s um i ng ar

gue ndo thatB arron est abl i shed a pri m a f aci e c a s e of e m p lo y m e n t d is c r im in a tio n b a s e d o n F R B A ’s d e c is io n to h ir e J a d w in , B a rr o n s till ca nn otshow di sc ri m i nat i on . F R B A m eti t s burden o f produ ci ng a l egi t i m at e, n o n - d i s c r i mi n a t o ry r e a s o n f o rn o th i r i n g a n y i n t e rn a l c a n d i d a t e s . N a me l y , FRBA di d n otbel i eve thatany i nt ernal ca nd i dat es w er e qual i fi ed. W hi l e B arron app ea rs t o argue thatF R B A ’ s burden o f produ ct i on i ncl ud ed spec i fy i ng ho w i nt ernal c a n d id a te s w e r e h ir e d , h e o v e r s ta te s F R B A ’s “e x c e e d in g ly lig h t” b u r d e n , w h ic h is o n e o f p r o d u c tio n . See C oo

per , 390 F . 3d a t725. T he bur de n of pe r s ua s i on r e m a in s w ith B a rr o n . See e . g. , D enney , 2 4 7 F . 3 d at1 1 8 3 . T h erefo re, h e m u st p r o v e th a t th e r e a s o n p r o v id e d w a s p r e te x tu a l. O n ap p e a l, B a rr o n r e lie s o n th is C our ta gr e e i ng w i th hi s a r gum e nttha tF R B A di d notm e e ti t s bur de n of10

p ro d u ctio n , an d as re su lt , p o in ts to n o ev id en ce o f p re tex t. T h er ef o re , F R B A ’s de c i s i on t o hi r e out s i de c a ndi da t e s doe s nots uppor tac l a i m of di s pa r a t e tr e a tm e nt be c a us e ( 1) F R B A m e ti t s bur de n of pr oduc t i on, na m e l y tha tthe r e w e r e no qua l i f i e d i nt e rna l c a ndi da t e s , e l i m i na t i ng the pr e s um pt i on of di s c r i m i na t i on, a nd ( 2 ) B a rr o n f

a ile d to p r e s e n t a n y a r g u m e n ts r e g a r d in g p r e te x t o n ap p e a l. W e c onc l ude tha tF R B A ’ s de c i s i on t o hi r e J a dw i n a s aC he c k C ol l e c t i ons S up ervi sor i s notevi dence of di sc ri m i nat i on because F R B A ’ s e xp l anat i on that there w er e no q ual i fi ed i nt ernal ca nd i dat es w as a l egi t i m at e, no n-di sc ri m i nat ory r e a s o n a n d B a rr o n f

a ile d to a r g u e th a t th e r e a s o n w a s p r e te x t o n ap p e a l. 3. A m e ndm e ntof

the E E O C C ha r ge B a rr on ha s aba ndone d the a r gum e ntr a i s e d i n a n i s s ue he a di ng tha tthe di s tr i c tc our ti m pr ope r l y de t e rm i ne d tha thi s f a i l ur e t o a m e nd hi s E E O C c om pl a i nt pr e c l ude d hi m f

r om us i ng the pr om ot i on of B a s w e l l a nd the hi r i ng of W hi t l e y a nd A ndrus a s e vi de nc e of

di s c r i m i na t i on. I ns t e a d of a r gui ng w he the rhe s houl d ha ve am ended h i s E E O C com pl ai nt , B arron con t ends thathi s c i vi l com pl ai ntw as s uf f i c i e ntunde rF e d. R . C i v. P . 8, or , a l t e rna t i ve l y , the di s tr i c tc our ts houl d ha ve a llo w e d h im to a m e n d h is c o m p la in t. T h e s e a r g u m e n ts d o n o t a d d r e s s th e m e r its of the i s s ue r a i s e d i n the i s s ue he a di ng. T he r e f or e , B a rr on ha s w a i ve d thi s i s s ue on ap p e a l. Se e A c c e s s N

ow , I nc . v . Southw e s t

A i r l i ne s C o. , 3 8 5 F .3 d 1 3 2 4 , 1 3 3 0 ( 1 1 th11

C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) ; Ke l l i he rv . V e ne m an , 313 F . 3d 1270, 1274 n. 3 ( 11th C i r . 2002) ( hol di ng tha tappe l l a nt ’ s r e f e r e nc e t o a n E E O C r e t a l i a t i on c l a i m i n the s um m a ry of the a r gum e ntc ons t i tut e d aw a i ve rof the i s s ue be c a us e i tw a s nota r gue d on the m e r its ) . A l s o, w e w i l l notc ons i de rthe a r gum e nt s r e ga r di ng the s uf f i c i e nc y of B a rr on’ s c i vi l c om pl a i ntorB a rr on notbe i ng a l l ow e d t o a m e nd the c om pl a i nt b ecau se: (1 ) th e d i stri ctco u rtd i d n o tg ran tsu m m ary j u d g m en to n ei th er o f th ese g ro u n d s; (2 ) B arro n n ev er m o v ed t o am en d h i s co m p l ai n t ; an d (3 ) ev en i f th ese w ere v al i d arg u m en t s, B arro n w ai v ed th em b ecau se h e n ev er rai sed th ese a r g u m e n ts in th e d is tr ic t c o u r t. See Fou r Seasons H ot el s andR es ort

s, B . V . v. Co n s o r c i o Ba rr, S. A. , 3 7 7 F .3 d 1 1 6 4 , 1 1 6 8 - 6 9 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) . B . M ot i on t o S tr i ke B a rr on a r gue s tha tthe di s tr i c tc our ts houl d ha ve s truc k the de c l a r a t i ons of D e nni s B l a s s a nd A ndr e A nde r s on be c a us e he w a s notpr ovi de d w i th the s ubj e c tof th e d isco v er ab le in fo rm atio n th at B lass an d A n d er so n h ad in su p p o rt o f F R B A ’s c l a i m s a s r e qui r e d by F e d. R . C i v. P . 26( a ) ( 1) ( A ) . W i thoutthi s i nf orm a t i on, Ba rr o n a l l e g e s th a tth e d e c l a r a t i o n s s h o u l d h a v e b e e n s tru c k u n d e rFe d . R. Ci v . P. 37( a ) be c a us e he w a s de pr i ve d of a n oppor tuni ty t o c onduc tdi s c ove ry r e ga r di ng th e su b st an ce o f A n d erso n an d B l ass’ s d ecl arat i o n s.12

W e rev i ew a d i stri ctco u rt ’ s d eci si o n reg ard i n g a d i sco v ery m o t i o n su ch as a m o tio n to s tr ik e e v id e n c e f o ra n ab u s e o f

d is c r e tio n . See B enson v. T occo, Inc. , 113 F . 3d 1203, 1208 ( 11th C i r . 1997) . A l s o, w e r e vi e w adi s tr i c tc our t ’ s de c i s i on w he the rt o i m pos e s a nc t i ons f ora n abus e of

di s c r e t i on. See S C

A D IF , S. A . v. F i rst U n io n N a t. , 3 4 4 F .3 d 1 1 2 3 , 1 1 3 0 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) . U nde rF e d. R . C i v. P . 26( a ) , apa r ty m us tpr ovi de the othe rpa r t i e s w i th, in te ra lia , “ the nam e a nd , i f kno w n, the addres s a nd t el epho ne nu m ber of e ac h i n d i v i d u al l i k el y t o h av e d i sco v erab l e i n fo rm at i o n th atth e d i scl o si n g p arty m ay u se t o s uppor ti t s c l a i m s orde f e ns e s , unl e s s s ol e l y f

ori m pe a c hm e nt , i de nt i f y i ng the s ubj e c t s of

the i nf orm a t i on. ” F e d. R . C i v. P . 26( a ) ( 1) ( A ) . N or the rn D i s tr i c tof A l abam a L ocal R ul e 26. 1(a) (1)( A ) r equi re s thatpart i es “ prov i de t o o ther part i es the nam e a nd , i f kno w n, the address and t el epho ne nu m ber of e ac h i nd i vi du al be l i e ve d by i tt o ha ve di s c ove r abl e non- pr i vi l e ge d pe r s ona l know l e dge c onc e rni ng a ny s i gni f

i c a ntf a c tua l i s s ue s pe c i f

i c a l l y r a i s e d i n the pl e a di ngs ori de nt i f i e d by the p a r tie s in th e irr e p o r t to th e c o u r t u n d e rF e d . R . C iv . P . 2 6 ( f ) , ap p r o p r ia te ly i nd i ca t i ng the subj ec t s abo utw hi ch the pers on has s uch k no w l edge. ” N . D . A l a. L o c a l R . 2 6 .1 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) . H o w e v e r , if ap a r tyf a ils to m a k e ad is c lo s u r e u n d e rR u le 2 6 ( a ) , “a n y o th e rp a r ty m a y m o v e to c o m p e l d is c lo s u r e a n d f o rap p r o p r ia te s a nc t i ons . ” F e d. R . C i v. P . 37( a ) ( 2) . “ A pa r ty tha tw i thouts ubs t a nt i a l j us t i f i c a t i onWhil eF RB A’ s Rule26 dis c losure s a reno t pa rt of there c ord, thepa

rtie s a pp arently 2 agreethat Ander son and B lass were identified a s individuals with di scoverable infor mation beca use B arron did not challeng e F RBA’ s assertion that it had provide d Bla ss’s and Anderson’s names in its Rule 26 disclosures. 13 f a ils to d is c lo s e in f

o rm a tio n r e q u ir e d b y R u le 2 6 ( a ) . . . is n o t, u n le s s s u c h f a ilu r e is ha rm l e s s , pe rm i tt e d t o us e a s e vi de nc e a tatr i a l , a tahe a r i ng, oron am ot i on a ny w i tness or i nform at i on no tso di sc l osed. ” F ed. R . C i v. P . 37 (c )( 1). R ul e 37(c), w hi ch i s a“ se l f- exec ut i ng sa nct i on for f ai l ure t o m ake adi sc l osure, ” i s “ the m ore e f f e c tiv e e n f

o r c e m e n t” m e c h a n is m o f th e d is c lo s u r e r e q u ir e m e n t w h e n “th e p a r ty r e q u i r e d t o m a k e th e d i s c l o s u r e wo u l d n e e d th e m a t e r i a l t o s u p p o r ti t s o wn cont ent i on s. ” F ed. R . C i v. P . 37 , advi sorycom m i tt ee ’ s not e ( 19 93 ). A s a n in it ial m atter, B ar ro n w aiv ed h is claim th at B lass ’s an d A n d er so n ’s d ecl arat i o n s w ere n o tb ased o n p erso n al k n o w l ed g e b ecau se h e rai sed i tfo r th e fi rst tim e in th e r e p ly b r ie f

. See L i ndv. U

ni ted P arce l

Serv i ce, Inc. , 254 F . 3d 1281, 1 2 8 3 n .2 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) . A ls o , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id n o t ab u s e its d is c r e tio n in d en yi n g th e m o t i o n t o stri k e A n d erso n ’ s an d B l ass’ s d ecl arat i o n s. B ecau se A nd er son and B l as s w er e i dent i fi ed i n F R B A ’ s R ul e 26 d i sc l osures , B arron k new 2 thatthey w er e i nd i vi du al s w i th d i sc ov er abl e i nform at i on and cou l d h ave c on t ac t ed the a tt orne y s f

orF R B A f

orc l a r i f i c a t i on orf

ur the ri nf

orm a t i on aboutthe s ubj e c tof the di s c ove r abl e i nf

orm a t i on tha tthe y ha d. A l s o, be c a us e B a rr on kne w the r ol e s of B la s s a n d A n d e r s o n in F R B A , h e c o u ld h a v e in q u ir e d in to th e e x te n t o f th e ir14

kn ow l edge regar di ng hi s c l ai m s. T here i s no i nd i ca t i on thatB arron sou gh tsuch in f o rm a tio n b e f

o r e th e m o tio n to s tr ik e . A l s o, F R B A w a s s ubs t a nt i a l l y j us t i f i e d i n notpr ovi di ng the s ubj e c tof the di sc ov er abl e i nform at i on thatB l as s a nd A nd er son h ad because they w er e never m e nt i one d i n the c i vi l c om pl a i nta s pe rpe tr a t or s of di s c r i m i na t i on a nd the na tur e of the c om pl a i ntdi d notr e ve a l w ha tr e l e va nti nf orm a t i on B l a s s a nd A nde r s on m i ght p o s s e s s . See F e d. R . C i v. P . 37, a dvi s ory c om m i tt e e not e s ( 1993) ( “ L i m i t i ng the a u to m a tic s a n c tio n to v io la tio n s ‘w ith o u t s u b s ta n tia l ju s tif ic a tio n ’ . . . is n e e d e d to a voi d undul y ha r s h pe na l t i e s . . . . ” ) . A s the di s tr i c tc our te xpl a i ne d, B a rr on’ s s hot g u n c o mp l a i n td i d n o tc l e a r l y i n d i c a t e w h a tr o l e a n y i n d i v i d u a l s w i th i n FRBA w o u ldh av e h ad in th e a ll eg ed d iscr im in atio n . F u rth er , th e d istrict co u rt’s sc hedu l i ng order s peci fi ca l l y di re ct ed the part i es t o exchang e i nform at i on re qu i re d by L oc a l R ul e 26. 1( a ) ( 1) , w hi c h onl y r e qui r e s the na m e of i ndi vi dua l s w ho ha ve “p e r s o n a l k n o w le d g e c o n c e rn in g a n y s ig n if ic a n t f a c tu a l is s u e s p e c if

ic a lly r a is e d in the pl e a di ngs ori de nt i f

i e d by the pa r t i e s i n the i rr e por tt o the c our t . ” B e c a us e the c om pl a i ntw a s va gue a nd f a i l e d t o na m e B l a s s orA nde r s on a s pe rpe tr a t or s of d iscr im in atio n , i t d idn o t rev ea l a sig n ifican t fac tu al issu e r eg ar d in g B ar ro n ’s c la im s o v e rw h ic h B la s s a n d A n d e r s o n n e c e s s a r ily w o u ld h a v e h a d in f o rm a tio n . N o r i s th ere an y i n d i cat i o n th atB l ass o r A n d erso n w ere i d en t i fi ed i n th e p art i es’15

r e p o r t to th e c o u r t. T h e r e f o r e , F R B A c o m p lie d w ith th e L o c a l R u le . A c c or di ngl y , w e c onc l ude tha tthe di s tr i c tc our tdi d notabus e i t s di s c r e t i on i n d enyi ng the m ot i on t o stri ke. C . M ot i on t o S ever B a rr o n a r g u e s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t s h o u ld n o t h a v e g r a n te d th e m o tio n to s e ve rthe s e ve n pl a i nt i f

f s ’ c l a i m s i nt o s e pa r a t e a c t i ons be c a us e : ( 1) he di d notha ve a ny oppor tuni ty t o r e s pond be f or e e ntry of

the c our t ’ s or de rt o s e ve r ; a nd ( 2) the s e ve n c o- pl a i nt i f

f s ’ pr om ot i on c l a i m s w e r e “ s tr i ki ngl y s i m i l a ra nd c onne c t e d” because they a l l eged a patt ern and prac t i ce of keepi ng bl ac k em pl oyee s i n l ow er l ev el j o b s. O rdi nari l y, w e r evi ew a di stri ctcourt ’ s grantof a m ot i on t o severfor a n abus e of di s c r e t i on. See B ai leyv. B oa rd of C ou nt y C om m ’r

s of A lachu a C ou nt

y, Fla. , 95 6 F . 2d 11 12 , 11 28 (11th C i r. 19 92 ). W hen a party f ai l s t o rai se an a r gum e ntori s s ue be l ow , w e ge ne r a l l y de e m the i s s ue t o be w a i ve d. Se e e . g. , Four Se a s o n s H

o te ls a n d R e s o r ts , 37 7 F . 3d at11 68 -69. N everthel es s, w e m ayre vi ew an is s u e o ra r g u m e n t n o t r a is e d b e lo w w h e n : ( 1 ) it in v o lv e s “a p u r e q u e s tio n o f la w if the r e f us a l t o c ons i de ri tw oul d r e s ul ti n am i s c a rr i a ge of j us t i c e ” ; ( 2) the obj e c t i on i s n o trai sed i n th e co u rtb el o w b ecau se “ th e ap p el l an th ad n o o p p o rtu n i ty t o rai se the obj e c t i on” ; ( 3) “ the r e i s a ts t a ke as ubs t a nt i a l i nt e r e s tof j us t i c e ” ; ( 4) “ the16

pr ope rr e s ol ut i on i s be y ond a ny doubt ” ; a nd ( 5) “ i f the i s s ue pr e s e nt s s i gni f i c a nt qu es t i on s of gener al i m pactor grea tpu bl i c c on ce rn. ” In re W orldw i de W

eb System s, Inc. , 32 8 F . 3d 12 91 , 13 01 (11th C i r. 20 03 ). B a rr on ha s w a i ve d thi s i s s ue on appe a l be c a us e he ne ve robj e c t e d t o the di stri ctcourt ’ s dec i si on t o severbel ow and n on e of the w ai ver e xcept i on s a re ap p lic ab le . Se e i d. ; Fo u rSe a s o n s H o te ls a n d R e s o r ts , 3 7 7 F .3 d a t 1 1 6 8 - 6 9 . B a rr on’ s c ont e nt i on tha the ha d no oppor tuni ty t o oppos e the m ot i on t o s e ve rdue t o the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s qui c k de c i s i on t o s e ve rthe c l a i m s f ol l ow i ng F R B A ’ s m ot i on i s u n p ersu asi v e an d d o es n o tfal l w i th i n an ex cep t i o n t o th e w ai v er ru l e b ecau se B a rr o n c o u ld h a v e s o u g h t r e c o n s id e r a tio n o f th e c o u r t’s s e v e r a n c e o r d e r . T here fore , w e c on cl ud e thatB arron h as w ai ved thi s c l ai m on appeal for f ai l ure f a ile d to c o n te s t th e d e c is io n d u r in g th e d is tr ic t c o u r t p r o c e e d in g s . F or the foregoi ng re as on s, w e A F F IR M the di stri ctcourt ’ s order s ( 1 ) g r a n tin g s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t in f a v o ro f F R B A , ( 2 ) d e n y in g th e m o tio n s to stri ke decl ar at i on s, and (3) grant i ng the m ot i on t o sever . AF F I RME D.