Case 1:05-cv-02519-CAP-CCH
~L

Document 1-1

Filed 09/28/2005 Page 1 of 6
rfttD HY CLEWS OFFlet
7.S.D C -AL .ianLa

V1~IN THT E UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SEP 2 8 2005

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA LUTHE U~ 5, ,,,erk
ATLANTA DIVISION B~

4 t Ci c

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT

"

OPPORTUNITY CO MMISSION,

Plaintiff,
V.
REGENCY HEALTH ASSOCIATES ,
Defendant .

CIVIL ACTION NO .
~ 05 C V 25 19
COMPLAINT
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

NATURE OF THE ACTION This is an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 . as amended, and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 ("Title VII") to correct unlawful employment practices on the basis of religion, and to provide appropriate relief to Ms . Hani Mohamed, who was adversely affected by such practices As expressed in greater detail below, Ms . Mohamed was employed by Regency Health Associates as a medical assistant . Ms Mohamed is a Muslim and abides by the Muslim tenet of covering her head with a scarf called a hijab, which she is required to wear in public including at work Defendant informed Ms Mohamed that wearing her hijab was in violation of the company's uniform protocol, and that no accommodation would be made for her religious beliefs Defendant also told her that if she continued to wear the hijab that she would no longer ha~ .~~e~ a~_~b
Consent Tn US Nag Pretrial Wtru c11ons Tws Y C ~.,,.

Case 1:05-cv-02519-CAP-CCH Document 1-1 Filed 09/28/2005 Page 2 of 6
with the company . Ms . Mohamed chose to adhere to her religious beliefs and was discharged by the Defendant
JURISDICTION AN D VENUE Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U S C § § 451, 133 1, 1337, 1343 and 1345 . This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to Section 70b( f)(1) and (3) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U .S .C . § 2000e-5(f)(1)and (3), and Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S .C . § 1981 a . 2 . The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were committed within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division
PARTIES 3 . Plaintiff, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the "Commission"), is the agency of the United States of America charged with the administration, interpretation and enforcement of Title VII and is expressly authorized to bring this action by Section 7060(1) and (3) of Title VII, 28 U S C § 2000e-5(f)(1} and (3). 4 . At all relevant times, Defendant Regency Health Associates ("Defendant") has continuously been a corporation doing business in the State of

Case 1:05-cv-02519-CAP-CCH Document 1-1 Filed 09/28/2005 Page 3 of 6
Georgia and the City of Atlanta, and has continuously had at least 15 employees 5 At all relevant times, Defendant has continuously been an employer
engaged in an industry affecting commerce under Section 701 (b), (g) and (h) of Title VII, 42 U .S .C . § 2000e(b) (g) and (h) .
STATEMENT OF CLAIMS 6 More than 30 days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Ms Mohamed filed her charge with the Commission alleging violations of Title VII b y Defendant All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled 7 In July 2004, Defendant engaged in unlawful employment practices at its Atlanta, Georgia, facility in violation of Section 703(a) of Title VII, 42 U .S .C. § § 2000e-3(a), by failing to accommodate the religious beliefs of Ms . Moharned and discharging her for wearing her hijab as proscribed by her religious beliefs . 8 . The effects of the practices complained of in paragraph 7 above have been to deprive Ms . Mohamed of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect her status as an employee because of her religion . 9 . The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph 7 above were intentional
3

Case 1:05-cv-02519-CAP-CCH Document 1-1 Filed 09/28/2005 Page 4 of 6
10 . The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph 7 above were carried out with malice and /or reckless indifference to the federa l ly protected rights of Ms . Mohamed .
PRAYER FOR RELIEF Wherefore, the Commission respectfully requests that this CourtA . Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant, its officers, successors, assigns and all other persons in active concert or participation with it, from engaging in employment practices which discriminate on the basis of reli gi on B Order Defendant to institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs which provide equal employment opportunities for religious practices, and which eradicate the effects of its past and present unlawful employment practices . C . Order Defendant to make whole Ms Mohamed, who was adversely affected by Defendant's discriminatory conduct, by providing appropriate back pay with prejudgement interest, in amounts to be determined at trial, and other affirmative relief necessary to eradicate the effects of its unlawful employment practices, including but not limited to reinstatement of Ms . Mohamed and/or front pay
4

Case 1:05-cv-02519-CAP-CCH Document 1-1 Filed 09/28/2005 Page 5 of 6
D. Order Defendant to make whole Ms . Mohamed by providing compensation for past and future pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment practices described above, including job search expenses, in amounts to be determined at trial .
E . Order Defendant to make whole Ms . Mohamed by providing compensation for non-pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment practices described above, including emotional pain and suffering, inconvenience, loss of enjoyment of life, anxiety, stress, depression, and humiliation, in amounts to be determined at trial
F Order Defendant to pay to Ms Mohamed punitive damages for Defendant's malicious and reckless conduct described above, in amounts to be determined at trial
G Grant such further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper . H . Award the Commission its costs in this action .
JURY TRI AL DEMAND The Commission requests a jury trial on all questions of fact raised by its Complaint .
(Signatures on next page)
5

Case 1:05-cv-02519-CAP-CCH Document 1-1 Filed 09/28/2005 Page 6 of 6 Respectfully submitted,
Regional Attorney Georgia Bar No 617505 U.S . Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Atlanta District Office 100 Alabama St , SW, Suite 4R30 Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Telephone- (404) 562-6812 Facsimile : (404) 562-6905
6

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY :

COMMISSION,

:

:

Plaintiff,

:

:

v.

:

:

REGENCY HEALTH ASSOCIATES,

:

:

Defendant.

:

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:05-CV-2519-CAP-CCH

O R D E R

The above-captioned employment discrimination action is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery Responses, Request for Sanctions, and Brief in Support Thereof [17] ("Motion to Compel"). Plaintiff has moved to compel discovery responses to Plaintiff’s Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents, and has moved for sanctions in response to Defendant’s refusal to provide the requested documents. Plaintiff seeks production of “all business and/or financial records that would support Defendant's contention that Defendant is not an ‘employer’ under Title VII.” Motion to Compel, at 9.
I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff filed its Complaint on September 28, 2005, alleging that Defendant discriminated against Ms. Hani Mohamed

on the basis of her religion, in violation of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e (“Title VII”). Defendant contends, in its eighteenth defense, that it is not an “employer” within the meaning of Title VII. Answer [5], at 5.
Discovery in this action continues, and is set to end on September 6, 2006. On March 20, 2006, Plaintiff served its First Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents upon Defendant [11]. In turn, Defendant served its Discovery Responses [12] on May 11, 2006.
Following correspondence between Plaintiff’s counsel and Defendant’s counsel, in which Defendant’s counsel again asserted that his client is not subject to suit because it does not constitute an “employer” under Title VII, Defendant produced documentation in support of this contention. Specifically, Defendant produced a motley assortment of documents, all under the title page “Regency Health Associates Employee Information,” which Plaintiff has appended to its Motion to Compel [17] under “Exhibit 7.” The five documents can be summarized as follows:
(1) a line graph titled “RHA Employee Numbers,” purporting to show the number of Defendant's employees during each week of 2003, and depicting the numbers of employees never exceeding the line at 15;
2

(2) a running list titled “Weekly Time Report,” appearing to list each individual employee employed with Defendant over 2003, broken down by the number of hours each employee worked during each of the 52 weeks of 2003, with a row at the beginning of each week stating “Title VII Maximum: 15";
(3) a running list titled “Weekly Time Report,” appearing to list each individual employee employed with Defendant over 2004, broken down by the number of hours each employee worked during each of the 52 weeks of 2004, with a row at the beginning of each week stating “Title VII Maximum: 15";
(4) a running list of employee names, listing the number of hours each employee worked on each day of 2003, and
(5) a running list of employee names, listing the number of hours each employee worked on each day of 2004.
Plaintiff found that the documentation was insufficient to prove Defendant did not qualify as an “employer,” and served Defendant with its Continuing Request for the Production of Documents (“Continuing Request”) on June 9, 2006. Specifically, Plaintiff requested that Defendant produce the following:
1. All documents, including but not limited to correspondence, contracts, personnel records, payroll records, W-2 Forms, and pay
3

check stubs, that contain information pertaining to the number of employees employed by Regency Health Associates from January 1, 2003 through December 31, 2004.
2. All documents submitted to the Internal Revenue Service, including but not limited to Form 941 - Employer’s Quarterly Federal Tax Return and/or Form 944 - Employer’s Annual Federal Tax Return, that contain information pertaining to the number of employees employed by Regency Health Associates from January 1, 2003 through December 31, 2004.
3. Any and all other documents that contain information which supports the statement in your Answer that “some or all of Plaintiff’s claims are barred because Defendant is not an ‘employer’ within the meaning of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.”
Continuing Request, at 3.
Defendant responded to Plaintiff’s Continuing Request for
Production, objecting as follows:
it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, and subject to varying interpretations . . . . it calls for documents protected by the attorney-client privilege, accountant-client privilege, or the work product doctrine . . . . it subjects Defendant to undue burden and expense and is both harassing and duplicative . . . . Defendant states that it has already voluntarily produced to Plaintiff detailed payroll and time clock information showing that Defendant is not an 'employer' within the meaning of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, because Defendant did not have the requisite minimum number 15 [sic] or more employees for each working day in each of 20 or more calendar
4

weeks in calendar years 2003 or 2004. Accordingly, Defendant is not subject to suit under Title VII . . .
Defendant’s Objections and Responses to Plaintiff’s Second Request for Production of Documents (“Defendant’s Objections”), at 3-4.
Defendant objects to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel, stating, “Defendant is not subject to suit under Title VII, and therefore, not subject to discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.”1 Defendant’s Response in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel, at 1.
After submitting its Motion for Summary Judgment [21], Defendant also filed a Substituted Response Brief in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Compel [25] ("Substituted Objections"). In its Substituted Objections, Defendant asserts objections to the requested discovery documents that are similar to those already raised in Defendant's Objections. Where Defendant has raised new objections in its Substituted Objections, they will be addressed in footnotes.
1Defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment [21] on August 23, 2006, asserting that it is not subject to suit under Title VII because it did not have 15 or more employees during the relevant time period. This Court granted Plaintiff an extension to file its response to the Motion for Summary Judgment, while this Motion to Compel is pending [24].
5

II. DISCUSSION
As a threshold matter, the official documents the Plaintiff is requesting are highly relevant. Discovery permits the disclosure of all non-privileged evidence that is “relevant to the claim or defense of any party,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1), and Defendant has stated it intends to assert the defense that it had fewer than 15 employees during the relevant time period. Therefore, Plaintiff must be entitled to discover official documents recording the number of Defendant’s employees during the relevant two-year time period.
Defendant objects to Plaintiff’s document request on five basic grounds. Each objection will be discussed in turn.
A. First Objection
Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s request for all documents pertaining to the number of employees employed by Defendant is “vague, ambiguous, overly broad, and subject to varying interpretations.” Defendant's Objections, at 3. While a request for "all documents" pertaining to this issue could cover every piece of paper in Defendant's possession, Plaintiff gave very specific examples of documents it seeks, such as personnel records, payroll records, and W-2 forms. Moreover, the second
6

paragraph of Plaintiff's Continuing Request was even more targeted, and was limited to documents submitted to the Internal Revenue Service pertaining to its employees.2 The Court finds that Plaintiff’s request, narrowed to these identified documents, is sufficiently specific, and Defendant is ORDERED to produce these documents.
B. Second Objection

Defendant asserts that Plaintiff's request "calls for documents protected by the attorney-client privilege, accountant-client privilege, or the work product doctrine.” Defendant's Objections, at 3. Although Defendant asserts that Plaintiff has requested documents protected by various privileges, Defendant has asserted no grounds for this contention. The documents Plaintiff requests, such as W-2 forms for example, are not normally protected by attorney-client privilege.3 Therefore, this objection is not substantiated.

2It is the Court's experience that W-2 forms are generally transmitted to the Internal Revenue Service under cover of a W-3 form which, in part, identifies the number of W-2's submitted by (and thus, persons employed by) the employer. This form should be produced as well as all other employment-related forms submitted to the Internal Revenue Service covering 2003 and 2004.

3Defendant also argues that the requested tax returns

contain confidential financial information.

Substituted

Objections, at 4. If this is the case, it can be remedied by

7

C. Third Objection
Defendant also asserts that Plaintiff’s request is harassing, and that it subjects Defendant to an undue burden. Defendant's Objections, at 3. Again, Defendant does not substantiate its argument. As the Court has narrowed its request, Plaintiff has requested specific documents spanning a period of two years - a reasonably limited period of time. Further, the documents Plaintiff requests pertain to time periods over which Defendant contends it had fewer than 15 employees. Therefore, this discovery request should be neither extensive nor unduly time consuming.
D. Fourth Objection
Additionally, Defendant contends that Plaintiff’s request is duplicative, because Defendant has already provided documents depicting the relevant information. Defendant's Objections, at 3. Defendant is correct that it has produced documents to Plaintiff that contain information about its employees over the relevant time period. However, as discussed supra, the documents Defendant has provided appear as though they might
redacting the confidential portions of documents that do not relate to the number of Defendant's employees, or by entering into a court-ordered protective order.
8

have been generated in anticipation of litigation.4 The documents already produced summarize information that should be officially reported in the financial documents Plaintiff is specifically requesting.
E. Fifth Objection
Defendant also argues that Plaintiff's Motion to Compel should be denied because Plaintiff has not conferred with Defendant "in good faith" regarding its discovery request, as required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the local rules of this District. Substituted Objections, at 4; Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(2)(A); LR37.1(A)(1), NDGa. In fact, the record discloses a volume of communications between the parties regarding the discovery request at issue here. See Motion to Compel [17], Ex. 2, 5, 6, 11.
While the parties are required to attempt to resolve discovery disputes among themselves before involving the court, it is evident from the parties' motions and prior communications
4Defendant asserts that the documents already provided "conclusively demonstrate that RHA never had the statutorily required minimum of 15 employees" during the relevant time period. Substituted Objections, at 3. However, because it is unclear from the documents themselves how they were generated, or whether they were kept in the Defendant's normal course of business, they do not necessarily establish the number of Defendant's employees "conclusively."
9

that the parties have continued to argue with each other regarding this discovery request, and will likely continue to do so unless the Court becomes involved.

III.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons discussed above, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery Responses [17] is GRANTED. Accordingly, Defendant is instructed to respond to Plaintiff’s Continuing Request, as narrowed by this Order, within fifteen (15) days from the date of this Order. Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is DENIED; however, failure to comply with this Order may result in the imposition of sanctions. See LR16.5, NDGa; Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a), 41(b).

In addition, the Court hereby extends the discovery period in this action through October 31, 2006. This will permit Plaintiff time to review the records to be disclosed pursuant to this Order and to depose Defendant with respect to those documents, and, if not previously done, Ms. Alexander's affidavit and the documents upon which she reached her conclusions as to the number of Defendant's employees in 2003 and 2004.

10

Finally, Plaintiff shall have until November 21, 20065 to respond to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 6th day of September, 2006. ______________________________ C. CHRISTOPHER HAGY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
5The deadlines set forth in this Order supersede the extensions granted in this Court's August 25, 2006 Order [24] responding to Plaintiff's Motion to Stay [23].
11

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY :

COMMISSION,

:

:

Plaintiff,

:

:

v.

:

:

REGENCY HEALTH ASSOCIATES,

:

:

Defendant.

:

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:05-CV-2519-CCH

O R D E R

The above-captioned employment discrimination action is before the Court on Defendant’s Motion to Quash and for Protective Order [32]. Defendant has asked this Court to quash Plaintiff’s subpoena served on Mrs. Diane Alexander, to quash the deposition notice of Dr. Elmore Alexander, and to enter a protective order designating Mrs. Alexander as a corporate representative pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(b)(6) and limiting Mrs. Alexander’s deposition to two hours. For the reasons discussed below, Defendant’s Motion to Quash and for Protective Order [32] is hereby GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.

I. BACKGROUND FACTS

In this action, Plaintiff claims Defendant discriminated against its employee, Ms. Hani Mohamed, when it prohibited her from wearing a head scarf in accordance with her religious

beliefs and terminated her when she refused to stop wearing it. Complaint [1] at 1. Discovery was bifurcated by this Court’s November 1, 2006 Order [37]. The only issue in the current phase of discovery is whether Defendant had enough employees during the relevant time period to qualify as a statutory employer within the meaning of Title VII.
On October 13, 2006, Plaintiff served Mrs. Alexander, Defendant’s CEO, with a notice of deposition and attached subpoena duces tecum, in which it requested that Mrs. Alexander bring to her deposition “[a]ll documents, including but not limited to personnel records, payroll records, and time sheets, which reflect the amount of hours worked per week for each week” during the relevant time period for 21 listed individuals. See Motion to Quash [32] at Exhibit B. On the same day, Plaintiff served Dr. Alexander, Defendant’s CFO, with a notice of deposition.
II. SUBPOENA SERVED ON MRS. ALEXANDER
Defendant requests that this Court quash the subpoena served on Mrs. Alexander, basing its objection on two grounds. First, Defendant states Plaintiff has sought the personnel documents using Fed.R.Civ.P. 45, which it states is the incorrect
2

mechanism for compelling a party to an action to produce documents because Rule 45 is addressed only to non-parties. Motion to Quash at 3. Instead, Defendant argues, Plaintiff should have requested the desired documents from Mrs. Alexander under Fed.R.Civ.P. 34, which applies to parties.
Plaintiff responds that it has properly requested that Mrs. Alexander bring the personnel documents with her to her deposition under Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(b)(1). That rule permits a party to serve a subpoena duces tecum along with a notice of deposition, requesting the production of documents at a party’s deposition.1 While utilizing Rule 34 is another (and perhaps more efficient) way to obtain documents to be used at a deposition (see Rule 30(b)(5)), the Court is unwilling to quash Mrs. Alexander’s subpoena on the ground that Rule 34 is the only avenue available to a party to obtain documents to be used at a deposition from another party.
Defendant also objects to Plaintiff's subpoena because it requests the same documents that Plaintiff has already requested, and which Defendant has presumably produced. See
1 Rule 30(b)(1) states, “If a subpoena duces tecum is to be served on the person to be examined, the designation of the materials to be produced as set forth in the subpoena shall be attached to, or included in, the notice.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(b)(1).
3

Motion to Quash at 4-5. While Rule 30 provides two means to obtain documents, the intent is not to require a party to produce the same documents twice. Thus, Defendant need only produce the documents sought in Plaintiff's Rule 30 subpoena that it has failed to produce in response to this Court's Order of September 6, 2006.

In sum, the Court finds no basis on which to quash Plaintiff’s October 13, 2006 subpoena duces tecum, but limits Defendant's obligations thereunder to producing the documents subpoenaed that have not been otherwise produced prior to the deposition. Thus, Defendant’s Motion to Quash the subpoena issued to Mrs. Alexander [32] is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.

III.

DEPOSITION NOTICE OF DR. ALEXANDER

Defendant also requests that the Court quash Plaintiff’s notice of deposition of Dr. Alexander. See Motion to Quash at 5-7. Defendant argues that any questions Dr. Alexander could answer would be duplicative of the questions Mrs. Alexander would answer anyway. Id. at 6-7. Further, Defendant states, Dr. Alexander is not as familiar with the administrative workings of his company as Mrs. Alexander, and thus would have

4

little personal knowledge about the number of employees Defendant had at any given time (the only relevant issue at this stage of discovery). Id.

Plaintiff counters that a deposition of Dr. Alexander is relevant to its contention that he may qualify as both an officer and an employee of his company, and may thus be included in the calculation of the number of Defendant’s employees in 2003 and 2004. Pl.’s Response [40] at 5. Plaintiff states that it intends to depose Dr. Alexander with respect to his role in the company, and thus that he personally has relevant information that would not be duplicative of Mrs. Alexander’s testimony. Id. at 5-6.

The Court finds that Plaintiff has shown good cause for

deposing Dr. Alexander, as he personally has information

relevant to Defendant’s defense that it does not qualify as a

statutory employer under Title VII.

See Fed.R.Civ.P.

26(b)(1)(stating that parties are entitled to obtain discovery

on matters “relevant to the claim or defense of any party”).

Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion to Quash [32] is hereby DENIED

with respect to the deposition notice of Dr. Alexander.

5

IV. PROTECTIVE ORDER
Defendant also requests a protective order that would allow Defendant to designate Mrs. Alexander as Defendant’s Rule 30(b)(6) corporate representative for the purposes of answering questions about Defendant’s status as an “employer” under Title VII, and that would limit Mrs. Alexander’s deposition to two hours. See Motion to Quash at 1.
Rule 30(b)(6) states that, in the event a notice of deposition names a corporation as the deponent, the named corporation may designate certain officers to testify on the corporation’s behalf. Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(b)(6). This provision of the Federal Rules does not apply to the present dispute, however, because Plaintiff’s notice of deposition is clearly addressed to “Diane Alexander,” rather than to Regency Health Associates as an entity.2 See Motion to Quash at Ex. B. The Court can find no reason why Rule 30(b)(6) is relevant to the notice of deposition of Mrs. Alexander.
2 It appears that Defendant may be attempting to limit the scope of Mrs. Alexander’s deposition by designating her as the company’s Rule 30(b)(6) representative for purposes of testifying about Defendant’s employee records only. Plaintiff has already stated, however, that it does not intend to depose Mrs. Alexander only on the issue of employee time records, but also on the issue of Mrs. Alexander’s own role in the company, for purposes of determining whether she personally should be considered an “employee” under Title VII.
6

Additionally, the Court finds no reason to limit Mrs. Alexander’s deposition to two hours, as Defendant requests.3 Defendant has not stated why a two hour limit would be necessary or even appropriate, particularly given that Plaintiff has stated its purpose in deposing Mrs. Alexander is twofold: (1) to inquire as to the time cards of the 21 employees listed in its subpoena duces tecum, and (2) to determine whether Mrs.
Alexander should be counted as an employee as well as an officer of her company. See Motion to Quash at Ex. B; Pl.’s Response at 6-7.
In short, Plaintiff has good cause to depose Mrs. Alexander for up to seven hours on the limited issues being addressed in this stage of discovery. Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion for Protective Order [32] is hereby DENIED.
3 The Court notes that the two deposition notices that were served on Dr. and Mrs. Alexander contemplated both depositions taking place on the same day, one at 10:00am and one at 1:00pm. While not conclusive, this indicates that Plaintiff has no intention of deposing Mrs. Alexander for more than several hours. Further, if Plaintiff establishes that Defendant is a statutory employer and discovery is scheduled on the merits of this case, the time Plaintiff utilizes in deposing Dr. and Mrs. Alexander at this stage of the case will apply against its presumptive seven hour limit. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(d)(2). Thus, Plaintiff will have an incentive to conduct an efficient deposition.
7

V. CONCLUSION As discussed above, Plaintiff's subpoena duces tecum served
on Mrs. Alexander is appropriate, subject to the limitations described supra at 3-4. Plaintiff has good cause to depose Dr. Alexander, and there is no good cause to limit Mrs. Alexander’s deposition to two hours. Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion to Quash and for Protective Order [32] is hereby GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 7th day of November, 2006. ______________________________ C. CHRISTOPHER HAGY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
8

 
 N ORTHERN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF

nTI .S.D.C ATLANTOAU
GEORGIA A UG_.R. 1 .~f17

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

JAM E CLERK By' uty Clerk JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CAS

V.
REGENCY HEALTHCARE ASSOCIATES

Case Number :

1 :05 -CV-2519-CCH

X Jury Verdict . This action came before the Court for a trial by jury . The issues have been tried and the rendered its verdict .
D Decision by Court . This action came to trial or hearing before the Court . The issues have been tried or a decision has been rendered .
IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED
That the Plaintiff, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, take nothing, that the action be dismissed on the merits, and that judgment be entered in favor of defendant, with costs to be assessed against the Plaintiff as provided by law.

August 1,
Bate

JAMES X HATTEN
Clerk
(By) eputy Clerk

 
 CM/ECF LIVE v3.1.3 - U.S. District Court

https://ecf.gand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?114334366677835-L_9...

4months, CLOSED, EXH, STAY, TitleVII
U.S. District Court Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:05-cv-02519-CCH

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Regency Health Associates Assigned to: Magistrate Judge C. Christopher Hagy Case in other court: USCA-11th Circuit, 07-14460-F Cause: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (religion)

Date Filed: 09/28/2005 Date Terminated: 08/01/2007 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

Plaintiff
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

represented by Lakisha C. Duckett Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Atlanta District Office-Legal Unit 100 Alabama Street, S.W. 4R30 Atlanta Federal Center Atlanta, GA 30303-8704 404-562-6932 Email: lakisha.duckett@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Tina M. Burnside Equal Employment Opportunity Commission- NC 129 West Trade Street Suite 400 Charlotte, NC 28202 704-344-6876 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

S. Robert Royal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Atlanta District Office-Legal Unit 100 Alabama Street, S.W. 4R30 Atlanta Federal Center Atlanta, GA 30303-8704 404-562-6820 Email: stan.royal@eeoc.gov TERMINATED: 01/18/2007

1 of 10

3/24/2008 3:51 PM

CM/ECF LIVE v3.1.3 - U.S. District Court
V. Defendant Regency Health Associates

Date Filed

# Docket Text

https://ecf.gand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?114334366677835-L_9...
represented by Kenneth Thompson, Jr. Molden, Holley, Fergusson, Thompson & Heard, LLC 191 Peachtree Street. Suite 650 Atlanta, GA 30303 404-324-4500 Fax: 404-324-4501 Email: kthompson@carltonfields.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Regina Sledge Molden Molden, Holley, Fergusson, Thompson & Heard, LLC 191 Peachtree Street. Suite 650 Atlanta, GA 30303 404-324-4500 Email: rmolden@moldenholley.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bradley Erik Heard The Heard Law Offices, LLC Suite 1371 3695-F Cascade Road, SW Atlanta, GA 30331-2105 404-344-9255 Fax: 404-324-4501 Email: bheard@heardlawoffices.com TERMINATED: 01/18/2007
Makila A. Sands Helms Mullis & Wicker P.O. Box 31247 201 North Tryon Street Charlotte, NC 28231-1247 704-343-2000 Email: makila.sands@hmw.com TERMINATED: 03/28/2007

2 of 10

3/24/2008 3:51 PM

CM/ECF LIVE v3.1.3 - U.S. District Court

https://ecf.gand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?114334366677835-L_9...

09/28/2005
10/19/2005 12/12/2005 01/18/2006 02/07/2006
03/13/2006 03/13/2006 03/14/2006 03/14/2006 03/15/2006 03/23/2006 05/11/2006 07/05/2006 07/06/2006 07/12/2006

1 COMPLAINT with Jury Demand filed. Consent form to proceed before U.S. Magistrate and pretrial instructions given to attorney , filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(fkt) Please visit our website at http://www.gand.uscourts.gov to obtain Pretrial Instructions. (Entered: 09/29/2005)
2 NOTICE of Appearance by Lakisha C. Duckett on behalf of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Duckett, Lakisha) (Entered: 10/19/2005)
3 Summons Issued as to Regency Health Associates. (dcs) (Entered: 12/15/2005)
4 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF SERVICE Executed as to Regency Health Associates. (Heard, Bradley) (Entered: 01/18/2006)
5 ANSWER to Complaint by Regency Health Associates. Discovery ends on 7/7/2006.(Heard, Bradley) Please visit our website at http://www.gand.uscourts.gov to obtain Pretrial Instructions. (Entered: 02/07/2006)
6 Joint PRELIMINARY REPORT AND DISCOVERY SCHEDULE filed by Regency Health Associates. (Heard, Bradley) Modified on 3/16/2006 to add filer. (epm). (Entered: 03/13/2006)
7 Initial Disclosures by Regency Health Associates.(Heard, Bradley) (Entered: 03/13/2006)
8 Initial Disclosures by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.(Duckett, Lakisha) (Entered: 03/14/2006)
9 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Plaintiff's Initial Disclosures and Log of Withheld Documents by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.(Duckett, Lakisha) (Entered: 03/14/2006)
10 SCHEDULING ORDER Approving re 6 Joint Preliminary Report and Discovery Schedule. Signed by Judge C. Christopher Hagy on 3/15/06. (epm) (Entered: 03/16/2006)
11 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Plaintiff EEOC's First Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.(Duckett, Lakisha) (Entered: 03/23/2006)
12 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Discovery Responses by Regency Health Associates.(Heard, Bradley) (Entered: 05/11/2006)
13 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Duckett, Lakisha) (Entered: 07/05/2006)
14 ORDER Granting 13 Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery. Discovery ends on 9/6/2006. Signed by Judge C. Christopher Hagy on 7/06/2006. (cdg) (Entered: 07/06/2006)
15 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Responses to Plaintiff's Second Request for Production of Documents by Regency Health Associates.(Heard, Bradley) (Entered: 07/12/2006)

3 of 10

3/24/2008 3:51 PM

CM/ECF LIVE v3.1.3 - U.S. District Court

https://ecf.gand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?114334366677835-L_9...

08/01/2006
08/01/2006
08/01/2006 08/01/2006 08/18/2006 08/18/2006 08/21/2006 08/23/2006 08/23/2006 08/24/2006 08/25/2006

16 --DOCUMENT FILED IN ERROR-- MOTION to Compel Discovery Responses and Request For Sanctions with Brief In Support by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1# 2 Exhibit 2# 3 Exhibit 3# 4 Exhibit 4# 5 Exhibit 5# 6 Exhibit 6# 7 Exhibit 7 Part1# 8 Exhibit 7 Part 2# 9 Exhibit 7 Part 3# 10 Exhibit 7 Part 4# 11 Exhibit 7 Part 5# 12 Exhibit 7 Part6# 13 Exhibit 7 Part 7# 14 Exhibit 7 Part 8# 15 Exhibit 7 Part 9# 16 Exhibit 8# 17 Exhibit 9# 18 Exhibit 10# 19 Exhibit 11)(Duckett, Lakisha) Modified on 8/17/2006 (epm). (Entered: 08/01/2006)
17 --REDOCKETED PLDG 16 AS-- MOTION to Compel Discovery Responses and MOTION for Sanctions with Brief In Support filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1# 2 Exhibit 2# 3 Exhibit 3# 4 Exhibit 4# 5 Exhibit 5# 6 Exhibit 6# 7 Exhibit 7 Part 1# 8 Exhibit 7 Part 2# 9 Exhibit 7 Part 3# 10 Exhibit 7 Part 4# 11 Exhibit 7 Part 5# 12 Exhibit 7 Part 6# 13 Exhibit 7 Part 7# 14Exhibit 7 Part 8# 15 Exhibit 7 Part 9# 16Exhibit 8# 17 Exhibit 9# 18 Exhibit 10# 19 Exhibit 11)(epm) (Entered: 08/17/2006)
Notification of Docket Correction re 16 MOTION to Compel Discovery Responses and Request For Sanctions. This was a 2-part Motion docketed as 1 Motion; Redocketed as 17 Motion to Compel and Motion for Sanctions (epm) (Entered: 08/17/2006)
--ERROR - DUPLICATE ENTRY--Notification of Docket Correction re 16 MOTION to Compel Discovery Responses and Request For Sanctions. This document was filed as 1 Motion, but it is a 2-part Motion. Document redocketed as 17 Motion to Compel and Motion for Sanctions. (epm) (Entered: 08/23/2006)
18 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction with Brief In Support by Regency Health Associates. (Heard, Bradley) (Entered: 08/18/2006)
19 RESPONSE in Opposition re 17 MOTION to Compel Discovery Responses MOTION for Sanctions MOTION to Compel Discovery Responses MOTION for Sanctions MOTION to Compel Discovery Responses MOTION for Sanctions filed by Regency Health Associates. (Heard, Bradley) (Entered: 08/18/2006)
20 RESPONSE in Opposition re 18 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction with Brief in Support Thereof filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Duckett, Lakisha) (Entered: 08/21/2006)
21 MOTION for Summary Judgment with Brief In Support by Regency Health Associates. (Heard, Bradley) --Please refer to http://www.gand.uscourts.gov to obtain the Notice to Respond to Summary Judgment Motion form contained on the Court's website.-- (Entered: 08/23/2006)
22 Withdrawal of Motion 18 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction filed by Regency Health Associates, filed by Regency Health Associates. (Heard, Bradley) (Entered: 08/23/2006)
23 MOTION to Stay Proceedings by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Duckett, Lakisha) (Entered: 08/24/2006)
24 ORDER GRANTING 23 Motion to Stay Proceedings. The Plaintiff's deadline for responding to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment 21 is extended until 20 days after this Court issues its ruling on Plaintff's Motion to Compel 17 .Signed by

4 of 10

3/24/2008 3:51 PM

CM/ECF LIVE v3.1.3 - U.S. District Court

https://ecf.gand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?114334366677835-L_9...

08/29/2006 09/01/2006 09/05/2006 09/06/2006
10/13/2006 10/13/2006 10/26/2006 10/27/2006 10/29/2006 10/30/2006

Judge C. Christopher Hagy on 8/25/06. (epm) (Entered: 08/28/2006)
25 Defendant's Substituted Response Brief in Opposition re 17 MOTION to Compel Discovery Responses and MOTION for Sanctions filed by Regency Health Associates. (Heard, Bradley) Modified on 8/29/2006 to correct docket text to accurately reflect e-filed pleading (epm). (Entered: 08/29/2006)
26 REPLY to Response to Motion re 17 MOTION to Compel Discovery Responses, MOTION for Sanctions filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Duckett, Lakisha) Modified on 9/5/2006 to remove double wording (adg). (Entered: 09/01/2006)
Submission of 17 MOTION to Compel Discovery Responses, MOTION for Sanctions, submitted to Magistrate Judge C. Christopher Hagy. (adg) (Entered: 09/05/2006)
27 ORDER GRANTING 17 Motion to Compel. Accordingly, Defendant is instructed to respond to Plaintiff's continuing request, as narrowed by this order, within 15 days from the date of this Order. Plaintiff's 17 Motion for Sanctions is DENIED. In addition, the Court extends the discovery period in this action through 10/31/06. Finally, Plaintiff shall have until 11/21/06 to respond to Defendant's 21 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge C. Christopher Hagy on 9/6/06. (kt) (Entered: 09/06/2006)
28 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Notice of Deposition of Diane Alexander and Subpoena Duces Tecum by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.(Duckett, Lakisha) (Entered: 10/13/2006)
29 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Notice of Deposition of Elmore Alexander by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.(Duckett, Lakisha) (Entered: 10/13/2006)
30 Joint MOTION to Expedite Consideration of Motion for Entry of Stipulated Case Management Order, Joint MOTION for Order Stipulated Case Management Order with Brief In Support by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Regency Health Associates. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Stipulated Case Management Order)(Heard, Bradley) (Entered: 10/26/2006)
31 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Amended Notices of Deposition of Diane Alexander and Elmore Alexander by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.(Duckett, Lakisha) (Entered: 10/27/2006)
32 MOTION for Protective Order Governing Depositions, MOTION to Quash Deposition Notices & Subpoena Duces Tecum with Brief In Support by Regency Health Associates. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Quashing Deposition Notices and Entering Protective Order)(Heard, Bradley) (Entered: 10/29/2006)
33 -DOCUMENT FILED IN ERROR Withdrawal of Motion 21 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Regency Health Associates, filed by Regency Health Associates. (Heard, Bradley) Modified on 11/2/2006 (epm). (Entered: 10/30/2006)

5 of 10

3/24/2008 3:51 PM

CM/ECF LIVE v3.1.3 - U.S. District Court

https://ecf.gand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?114334366677835-L_9...

10/30/2006 10/30/2006 10/30/2006 10/30/2006 10/30/2006 11/01/2006
11/03/2006 11/03/2006 11/03/2006 11/06/2006 11/07/2006 11/16/2006 11/27/2006

34 -DOCUMENT FILED IN ERROR CONSENT to Jurisdiction by US Magistrate Judge by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Regency Health Associates.. (Heard, Bradley) Modified on 11/2/2006 (epm). (Entered: 10/30/2006)
35 CONSENT to Jurisdiction by US Magistrate Judge by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Regency Health Associates.. (Heard, Bradley) (Entered: 10/30/2006)
36 Withdrawal of Motion 21 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Regency Health Associates, filed by Regency Health Associates. (Heard, Bradley) (Entered: 10/30/2006)
Notification of Docket Correction re 33 Withdrawal of Motion. This document was filed with missing pages; redocketed as Pldg 36 with all pages attached. (epm) (Entered: 11/02/2006)
Notification of Docket Correction re 34 Consent to Jurisdiction by US Magistrate Judge. This document was filed with missing pages; redocketed as Pldg 35 with all pages attached. (epm) (Entered: 11/02/2006)
37 ORDER GRANTING 30 Motion to Expedite, 30 Motion for Order. The present phase of discovery is hereby extended through 11/28/06. Any dispositive motion addressing Defendant's status as a statutory employer shall be filed by 12/21/06; any response by 1/16/07, and any reply by 2/2/07. Following resolution of that issue, the parties may propose additional discovery and time for dispositive motions if there are any remaining issues in the case. Signed by Judge C. Christopher Hagy on 11/01/06. (kt) (Entered: 11/01/2006)
38 Order GRANTING 35 Consent to Jurisdiction by US Magistrate Judge. Case reassigned to Judge C. Christopher Hagy for all further proceedings. Signed by Judge Charles A. Pannell Jr. on 11/3/06. (epm) (Entered: 11/03/2006)
39 NOTICE TO ALL COUNSEL OF RECORD re 38 Order on Consent to Jurisdiction by US Magistrate Judge (epm) (Entered: 11/03/2006)
40 RESPONSE in Opposition re 32 MOTION for Protective Order Governing Depositions MOTION to Quash Deposition Notices & Subpoena Duces Tecum filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Duckett, Lakisha) (Entered: 11/03/2006)
Submission of 32 MOTION for Protective Order Governing Depositions MOTION to Quash Deposition Notices & Subpoena Duces Tecum, submitted to Magistrate Judge C. Christopher Hagy. (adg) (Entered: 11/06/2006)
41 ORDER GRANTING IN PART and DENYING IN PART 32 Motion to Quash and Motion for Protective Order . Signed by Judge C. Christopher Hagy on 11/7/2006. (adg) (Entered: 11/07/2006)
42 Notice for Leave of Absence for the following date(s): 11/20/06 -11/24/06, by Lakisha C. Duckett. (Duckett, Lakisha) (Entered: 11/16/2006)
43 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Amended Notices of Deposition of Diane Alexander and Dr. Elmore Alexander by Equal Employment Opportunity

6 of 10

3/24/2008 3:51 PM

CM/ECF LIVE v3.1.3 - U.S. District Court

https://ecf.gand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?114334366677835-L_9...

01/10/2007 01/14/2007 01/16/2007 01/16/2007 01/17/2007 01/18/2007 01/18/2007 02/05/2007 02/09/2007 02/27/2007 03/28/2007 04/13/2007
04/16/2007 04/30/2007 05/10/2007

Commission.(Duckett, Lakisha) (Entered: 11/27/2006)
44 Joint MOTION to Amend Scheduling Order with Brief In Support by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Regency Health Associates. (Duckett, Lakisha) Modified on 1/18/2007 to add filer (rth). (Entered: 01/10/2007)
45 NOTICE of Change of Address for Bradley Erik Heard, counsel for Regency Health Associates (Heard, Bradley) (Entered: 01/14/2007)
46 ORDER granting 44 Motion to Amend Scheduling Order. Discovery ends 3/16/07. Signed by Judge C. Christopher Hagy on 1/16/07. (rth) (Entered: 01/17/2007)
Discovery ends on 3/16/2007. (rth) (Entered: 01/17/2007)
NOTICE of Undeliverable Electronic Mail re: Set Discovery Deadline(s), 46 Order on Motion to Amend. Mail returned for S. Robert Royal due to no longer employed with the agency. (aar) (Entered: 01/17/2007)
47 NOTICE by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Of Withdrawal Of Counsel For Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Royal, S.) (Entered: 01/18/2007)
48 NOTICE by Regency Health Associates of Withdrawal of Bradley E. Heard as Counsel for Defendant (Heard, Bradley) (Entered: 01/18/2007)
49 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Notice of Deposition of Diane Alexander by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.(Duckett, Lakisha) (Entered: 02/05/2007)
50 NOTICE of Appearance by Makila A. Sands on behalf of Regency Health Associates (Sands, Makila) (Entered: 02/09/2007)
51 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Plaintiff EEOC's Responses to Defendant's First Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.(Duckett, Lakisha) (Entered: 02/27/2007)
52 NOTICE by Regency Health Associates Notice of Withdrawal (Sands, Makila) (Entered: 03/28/2007)
53 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File Consolidated Pre-Trial Order by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Regency Health Associates. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Duckett, Lakisha) Modified on 4/13/2007 to add filer (rth). (Entered: 04/13/2007)
54 ORDER granting 53 Motion for Extension of Time through 4/30/07 in which to file a proposed consolidated pre-trial order. Signed by Judge C. Christopher Hagy on 4/16/07. (rth) (Entered: 04/16/2007)
55 Proposed Pretrial Order by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Regency Health Associates. (Duckett, Lakisha) Modified on 5/1/2007 to add filer (rth). (Entered: 04/30/2007)
56 ORDER setting Pretrial Conference for 5/17/2007 10:00 AM in Courtroom 1879 before Judge C. Christopher Hagy. Signed by Judge C. Christopher Hagy on 5/2/07. (fmm) (Entered: 05/10/2007)

7 of 10

3/24/2008 3:51 PM

CM/ECF LIVE v3.1.3 - U.S. District Court

https://ecf.gand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?114334366677835-L_9...

05/17/2007
05/17/2007 06/13/2007 07/10/2007 07/10/2007 07/17/2007 07/26/2007 07/26/2007
07/26/2007 07/27/2007 07/30/2007 07/31/2007

57 ORDER setting Jury Trial for 7/30/2007 10:00 AM in Courtroom 1810 before Judge C. Christopher Hagy. All motions in limine must be filed by 7/10/07 and responses filed by 7/17/07. A Pretrial Conference is set for 7/19/2007 10:00 AM in Courtroom 1879 before Judge C. Christopher Hagy. Signed by Judge C. Christopher Hagy on 5/17/07. (rth) (Entered: 05/18/2007)
58 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge C. Christopher Hagy: Pretrial Conference held on 5/17/2007. Case set for trial beginning 7/30/07. (Tape #CCH 07-10@2782.)(rth) (Entered: 05/21/2007)
59 ORDER rescheduling Pretrial Conference for 7/26/2007 10:00 AM before Judge C. Christopher Hagy. Signed by Judge C. Christopher Hagy on 6/13/07. (rth) (Entered: 06/14/2007)
60 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Testimony of Catherine Puckett, Joy Treadwell, and Kecha Fye with Brief In Support by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Duckett, Lakisha) (Entered: 07/10/2007)
61 MOTION in Limine Irrelevant Evidence with Brief In Support by Regency Health Associates. (Thompson, Kenneth) (Entered: 07/10/2007)
62 RESPONSE in Opposition re 61 MOTION in Limine Irrelevant Evidence filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Duckett, Lakisha) (Entered: 07/17/2007)
63 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge C. Christopher Hagy : Pretrial Conference held on 7/26/2007. For specific rulings, see the Court's Order filed in conjunction with this minute sheet. (Tape #CCH 07-17 @ 413.)(hfm) (Entered: 07/27/2007)
64 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 60 Motion in Limine; denying as moot 61 Motion in Limine. As set forth in their Proposed Pretrial Order 57 , the parties will submit their requested jury charges by 9:30am on Monday, July 30, 3007. Signed by Judge C. Christopher Hagy on 7/26/07. (hfm) (Entered: 07/27/2007)
67 APPLICATION for Admission of Tina M. Burnside Pro Hac Vice by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(hfm) (Entered: 07/31/2007)
Submission of 60 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Testimony of Catherine Puckett, Joy Treadwell, and Kecha Fye and 61 MOTION in Limine Irrelevant Evidence, submitted to Magistrate Judge C. Christopher Hagy. (hfm) (Entered: 07/27/2007)
65 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge C. Christopher Hagy: Jury Trial held on 7/30/2007. Defendant's Oral MOTION to Dismiss - DENIED. Evidence entered. Proceedings continued. (Court Reporter Donna Keeble.)(hfm) (Entered: 07/31/2007)
66 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge C. Christopher Hagy: Jury Trial continued on 7/31/2007. Defendant's Oral MOTION for Directed Verdict DENIED. Proceedings continued. (Court Reporter Donna Keeble.)(hfm)

8 of 10

3/24/2008 3:51 PM

CM/ECF LIVE v3.1.3 - U.S. District Court

https://ecf.gand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?114334366677835-L_9...

08/01/2007
08/01/2007 08/01/2007 08/01/2007 08/01/2007
08/01/2007 08/01/2007 08/06/2007
08/29/2007
09/13/2007 09/21/2007
09/21/2007 09/26/2007
10/02/2007
10/10/2007
10/10/2007

(Entered: 07/31/2007)
68 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge C. Christopher Hagy: Jury Trial concluded on 8/1/2007. Verdict - for Defendant. Exhibits retained by the Court to be forwarded to the Clerks Office. (Court Reporter Donna Keeble.)(hfm) (Entered: 08/01/2007)
69 Exhibit List and Witness list. (hfm) (Entered: 08/01/2007)
70 Jury Instructions. (hfm) (Entered: 08/02/2007)
71 JURY VERDICT for Defendant. (hfm) (Entered: 08/02/2007)
72 JUDGMENT entered for Defendant and against Plaintiff for costs to be assessed as provided by law. (hfm)--Please refer to http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov to obtain an appeals jurisdiction checklist-- (Entered: 08/02/2007)
73 EXHIBITS received from Courtroom Deputy and placed in Exhibit room. (hfm) (Entered: 08/02/2007)
Civil Case Terminated. (hfm) (Entered: 08/02/2007)
74 ORDER granting 67 APPLICATION for Admission of Tina M. Burnside Pro Hac Vice filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Signed by Judge Richard W. Story on 8/6/07. (hfm) (Entered: 08/06/2007)
75 BILL OF COSTS by Regency Health Associates. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit of Kenneth Thompson, Jr.# 2 Affidavit of Kenneth Thompson, Jr. #(3) Exhibit A)(Thompson, Kenneth) Modified on 8/30/2007 (kt). (Entered: 08/29/2007)
Costs Taxed in amount of $ 1.427.55 against Plaintiff. (kt) (Entered: 09/13/2007)
76 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 72 Clerk's Judgment by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Transcript Order Form due on 10/5/2007 (Duckett, Lakisha) (Entered: 09/21/2007)
77 Transmission of Certified Copy of Notice of Appeal, Judgment and Docket Sheet to US Court of Appeals re: 76 Notice of Appeal. (pjm) (Entered: 09/21/2007)
78 USCA Acknowledgment of 76 Notice of Appeal filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Case Appealed to USCA-11th Circuit. Case Number 07-14460-F. (pjm) (Entered: 09/28/2007)
79 TRANSCRIPT ORDER FORM for proceedings held on 7/30/07 (Jury Trial) before Judge Magistrate Judge C. Christopher Hagy re: 76 Notice of Appeal. Court Reporter: Donna C. Keeble. USCA Appeal Number 07-14460-F. Financial Arrangements due on 10/17/2007. (pjm) (Entered: 10/03/2007)
80 Financial Arrangements Completed re: 76 Notice of Appeal filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Case Appealed to USCA-11th Circuit. Case Number 07-14460-F. Transcript due by 11/9/2007. (pjm) (Entered: 10/10/2007)
81 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on 7/30/07 (Jury Trial) before Judge Magistrate Judge Christopher C. Hagy. Court Reporter: Donna C. Keeble. (pjm) (Entered: 10/10/2007)

9 of 10

3/24/2008 3:51 PM

CM/ECF LIVE v3.1.3 - U.S. District Court

https://ecf.gand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?114334366677835-L_9...

10/10/2007 10/10/2007 02/08/2008

82 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on 7/31/07 (Jury Trial) before Judge Magistrate Judge Christopher C. Hagy. Court Reporter: Donna C. Keeble. (pjm) (Entered: 10/10/2007)
83 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on 8/1/07 (Jury Trial) before Judge Magistrate Judge Christopher C. Hagy. Court Reporter: Donna C. Keeble. Certificate of Readiness due on 10/24/2007. (pjm) (Entered: 10/10/2007)
84 Certified copy of USCA ORDER GRANTING Appellant's motion to dismiss this appeal with prejudice re: 76 Notice of Appeal filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Case Appealed to USCA-11th Circuit. Case Number 07-14460-F. (pjm) (Entered: 02/12/2008)

PACER Service Center

Transaction Receipt

03/24/2008 16:50:31

PACER Login:

wu0079

Client Code:

Description:

Docket Report

Search Criteria:

Billable Pages: 6

Cost:

eeoc 1:05-cv-02519-CCH 0.48

10 of 10

3/24/2008 3:51 PM

 
 'sf0'Y.'Y.\~';:';"

~t.c.~~t.~'\$l:~~Oc.'\c..·t-.\~l..~~'{l\~~~~UniCtte...d

States Court of Appeals
Eleventh Circuit
56 Forsyth Street. N. W.

ct':? ... ~ M . C~"; Atlanta. Georgia 30303

Thomas K. Kahn '" ~~

..,.....

Clerk

~.

~~

February 07,2008

James N. Hatten Clerk, U.S. District Court 75 SPRING ST SW STE 221 I ATLANTA GA 30303-3318

Appeal Number: 07-14460-FF
Case Style: EEOC v. Regency Health Associates District Court Number: 05-02519 CV-CCH-I

For rules and fornls visit www.call.uscourts.gov

The enclosed certified copy of this Court's Order of Dismissal is issued as the mandate of this court. See 11th Cir. R. 41-4. Counsel and pro se parties are advised that pursuant to 11th Cir. R. 27-2, "a motion to reconsider, vacate, or modify an order must be filed within 21 days of the entry of such order. No additional time shall be allowed for mailing."
The district court clerk is requested to acknowledge receipt on the copy of this letter enclosed to the clerk.

Sincerely, THOMAS K. KAHN, Clerk Reply To: Marcus Simmons (404) 335-6175

Enc!.

DIS-4 (3-2005)

FILED IN CLERK'S U~~I(;I:
U.S.D.C. Atlanta

FEB - ~ 2.0.0.~ Cl
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF AlP~.~~,~F~~':;';';';';R"U"'--'

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT!

puty Clerk
OF APPEAlS TH CIRCUIT
[!~_--O~1008J

No.07-14460-FF

THO\,iAS (KAHN

CLEII'K

'-'--";'~"":'~~::~~~-'

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

_---J

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

REGENCY HEALTH ASSOCIATES,

Defendant-Appellee.

--------------------------
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia

BEFORE: MARCUS and PRYOR, Circuit Judges. BY THE COURT:
Appellant's motion to dismiss this appeal with prejudice is GRANTED.