DECISION & ORDER On August 26, 2016, pro se plaintiff Roberto Andres Morales (“Morales”) filed this lawsuit against his former employer Pepsi Co Inc. (“defendant”) pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1962, 42 U.S.C. §§2000e, et seq., and the New York State Human Rights Law §§290, et seq., alleging that defendant discriminated against him on the basis of his race. (Docket #1). Currently pending before this Court is defendant’s motion for sanctions or to compel. (Docket #24). Also pending before the Court is defendant’s unopposed motion to amend the caption. (Docket #34). For the reasons explained below, defendant’s motion for sanctions and to compel (Docket #24) is granted in part and denied in part, and its motion to amend the caption (Docket #34) is granted.I. Motion for Sanctions or to Compel (Docket #24)Defendant requests that the Court impose the severe sanctions of dismissal or evidentiary preclusion based upon Morales’s alleged failure to comply with this Court’s November 30, 2017 Decision & Order. (Docket #24). Alternatively, defendant requests that the Court compel Morales to produce certain categories of documents, to execute several authorizations for the release of records, and to sit for an additional deposition, and issue an order awarding defendant the costs associated with the motion. (Id.). Plaintiff opposes the motion, maintaining that he has done his best to comply with his discovery obligations, that the documents requested are not readily available to him, and that his medical records are not relevant to the claims asserted in this action.1 (Docket #28).The parties previously were before the Court seeking assistance with the discovery process and setting a date for Morales’s deposition.2 (Docket ##14, 16, 20, 23). This Court directed the parties to confer and to set a deposition date for Morales. (Docket #23). The Court also directed Morales to “provide to counsel for defendant all documents relating to his claims against the defendant and his claimed damages, including any documents he intends to rely upon to prove his claims and damages.” (Id.). The Court cautioned Morales that failure to comply with the order could result in sanctions, including dismissal. (Id.).In accordance with the Court’s direction, Morales’s deposition was conducted on January 19, 2018. (Docket #24-1 at 6). Also in accordance with the Court’s order, on the evening of January 9, 2018, Morales produced to defendant’s counsel approximately seventy-seven pages of documents, consisting primarily of text messages, notes, and a handwritten calculation of alleged damages. (Id. at
7-8). Defendant asserts that Morales testified at his deposition that he possessed other relevant documents. (Docket #24-1 at 10). Unfortunately, defendant has failed to attach excerpts of the relevant deposition testimony. After the deposition, defendant’s counsel wrote to Morales to request that he produce several categories of documents and execute several authorizations. (Id. at 12 and Ex. B). The letter set a deadline of one week to respond; when Morales did not respond by that date, defendants filed the pending motion. (Id. at
