Opinion ID: 28916
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: complicated employment history at Martin.9

Text: Williams filed a motion to strike and for a Martin had hired and released Bass three finding of contempt and sanctions three days times, so Bass had three separate personnel before the district court entered summary files at Martin. Although Williams reviewed judgment. Accordingly, the court dismissed and receive documents from at least one of the motion to strike and for sanctions as moot. these files during discovery, he did not review Williams appeals the dismissal. and receive documents from all three files. Martin attributes this oversight to Williams primarily sought to strike five ex- inadvertence, which Williams does not dispute. hibits related to Samuel Bass’s employment at Martin, which exhibits were attached to The district court did not abuse its Martin’s motion for summary judgment.8 discretion by dismissing the motion as moot. The Bass exhibits did not prejudice Williams, because the court did not cite them in its 7 United States v. $9,041,598.68, 163 F.3d memorandum opinion, nor did it discuss Bass 238, 252 (5th Cir. 1998) (orders on motions to at all. Moreover, it is not as if Martin stood by strike and for sanctions); Rushing v. Kansas City and withheld evidence favorable to Williams. S. Ry., 185 F.3d 436, 509 (5th Cir. 1999) (pre-trial orders); Leatherman v. Tarrant County Narcotics 8 Intelligence & Coordination Unit, 28 F.3d 1388, (...continued) 1394 (5th Cir. 1994) (protective orders). ation and hence has waived his claims on appeal related to these four employees. United States v. 8 Williams also complained about failure to pro- Thibodeaux, 211 F.3d 910, 912 (5th Cir. 2000). duce documents related to Keith McCain, Jared 9 Wittington, Terry Hazelton, and Patrick Clark, Martin did not have an opportunity to respond also employees of Martin. Martin explains, how- to Williams’s motion to strike, because the district ever, that Williams either received or had the op- court dismissed the motion as moot three days after portunity to inspect these documents if they ex- Williams filed it. Martin now responds to the isted. Williams does not controvert this explan- motion in its brief, and Williams does not (continued...) controvert its explanation. 6 The documents, after all, show that Martin did entered it, and we will not hear arguments or not discriminate against black employees who objections not presented to the district court. exercised their FMLA rights. Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 1069, 1071 n.1 (5th Cir. 1994) (en banc). We also note Williams, then, could not have used these that Martin briefed the racial discrimination documents to aid his case. Moreover, he was claims in its motion for summary judgment, so fully aware of Bass’s employment his- the summary judgment can be construed as a torySSWilliams stipulated, before moving for ruling on the racial discrimination claims as summary judgment, that Bass was a white em- well as the FMLA claim. ployee whom Martin fired in early 2000 for excessive absenteeism. C. In the early stages of discovery, Williams Finally, Williams had ample time to examine moved to compel inspection of Martin’s emthese documents or request further discovery ployee personnel files, and Martin moved for after receiving them. Martin filed its motion a protective order. The district court denied for summary judgment, with the Bass exhibits Williams’s motion and entered a protective attached, on January 31, 2002. Williams did order to limit discovery of the personnel files not file his response until March 8, and the to records of absenteeism and FMLA leave. discovery phase was not scheduled to end until Williams argues that this order impeded his April 7. Under these circumstances, any error discovery of relevant facts. was harmless. FED. R. CIV. P. 61; Tagupa v. Bd. of Dirs., 633 F.2d 1309, 1312 (9th Cir. The court did not abuse its discretion. Wil1980). liams apparently believes that he had an inviolable right to rummage through these