Talley v. Dep't of Labor, No. 19-00493, 2020 WL 3966312 (W.D. Mo. July 13, 2020) (Smith, J.)

Talley v. Dep't of Labor, No. 19-00493, 2020 WL 3966312 (W.D. Mo. July 13, 2020) (Smith, J.)

Re:  Request for certain emails of two individuals

Disposition:  Denying plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings; granting defendant's motion for summary judgment; finding moot defendant's motion to strike jury demand and plaintiff's motion for leave to file notice of appeal; striking plaintiff's notice of appeal

• Litigation Considerations, Mootness and Other Grounds for Dismissal:  The court applies res judicata, holding that "[plaintiff], represented by [plaintiff's counsel], brings the matter currently before this Court, seeking the same relief [plaintiff's counsel] sought in his administrative and judicial proceedings."  "[Plaintiff] asks this Court to decide something that ALJs and the D.C. District Court have already determined."  "Nothing in the record demonstrates any controlling facts or legal principles have changed significantly since those determinations were made."  "Instead, the record demonstrates [plaintiff] merely serves as [plaintiff's counsel's] proxy in this matter."  "Based on the record before the Court, which includes but is not limited to [plaintiff's and his counsel's] foregoing declarations and representations, [plaintiff's counsel] is assisting in, if not controlling, the prosecution of this matter in [plaintiff's] name."  "This lawsuit seeks to relitigate an issue already resolved in [plaintiff's counsel's] D.C. lawsuit, which was appealed and affirmed twice, and [plaintiff's counsel's] administrative proceedings."  "Because [plaintiff's counsel], at a minimum, is 'assist[ing] in the prosecution' of this lawsuit 'in aid of some interest of his own,' he is barred from bringing this lawsuit in [plaintiff's] name."  "In addition to [plaintiff] serving as [plaintiff's counsel's] proxy, [plaintiff] and [plaintiff's counsel] are in privity, which bars [plaintiff] from bringing this matter."  The court holds that "the record is clear in this matter."  "There is not simply a 'whiff' of 'tactical maneuvering.'"