Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-3_05-cv-03056/USCOURTS-arwd-3_05-cv-03056-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

HARRISON DIVISION

CRYSTAL LEANN “CLARIDA”

FITZWATER, et al. PLAINTIFFS

v. Civil No. 05-3056

JOHNNY L. NICHOLS, et al. DEFENDANTS 

O R D E R

Now on this 19th day of July, 2006, the above referenced

matter comes on for this Court’s consideration of Plaintiffs’

Crystal Leann “Clarida” Fitzwater, Jerald W. Fitzwater, and Alton

Louis Vaughn, Sr. Motion to Recall, Set Aside and Vacate June 2,

2006 Order (document #128). The Court, being well and

sufficiently advised, finds and orders as follows: 

1. The plaintiffs initiated this action on September 22,

2005. An amended complaint was filed herein on November 9, 2005,

naming as defendants Johnny L. Nichols, John Putman, Randel Earl

Clarida, Danny Hickman, Richard Bogue, Linda Adams, and Zeola

Yeager. 

2. Following various motions filed by the parties, a Civil

Trial Scheduling Order was issued by this Court on May 9, 2006.

The scheduling order sets the case for trial by jury during the

week of December 4, 2006, and directs that discovery be completed

no later than September 5, 2006. 

3. On May 23, 2006, a pleading entitled Plaintiffs’

Oppositions and Objections to Defendants’ Notices of Deposition

Case 3:05-cv-03056-JLH Document 140 Filed 07/19/06 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>
2

and Plaintiffs’ Notice of Availability (document #123) was filed

with the Court. In the pleading, the plaintiffs objected to

certain Notices of Depositions propounded by the defendants. 

The Court, after reviewing the pleadings of the parties and

the Notices of Depositions in question, found that “they provided

‘reasonable notice’ and specified a reasonable, public location in

the city in which the action is pending.” (Order, June 2, 2006,

document #127) The plaintiffs’ challenge to the Notices of

Depositions was rejected, and the Court found that the defendants

were entitled to conduct the depositions noticed for June 6 and 7.

(document #127) 

4. In clear violation of the Court’s said Order, the three

named plaintiffs did not show up for the depositions but, instead,

filed the instant motion to “recall, set aside and vacate” this

Court’s June 2 Order. 

In the motion, the plaintiffs essentially restate the

arguments set forth in their motion to quash which the Court had

denied and complain that the defendants did not sufficiently work

with them when scheduling the time and place for the depositions.

5. The defendants have filed responses to the plaintiffs’

instant motion. They object to the plaintiffs’ attempt to reargue

and set aside this Court’s order and argue that the plaintiffs’

complaint should be dismissed due to the plaintiffs’ failure to

comply with the required discovery and this Court’s order. 

6. Plaintiffs have replied to the defendants’ responses --

again “rehashing” their original arguments which the Court has

already rejected in its June 2, 2006, Order. 

Case 3:05-cv-03056-JLH Document 140 Filed 07/19/06 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>
3

7. Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

provides for relief from an order or judgment under certain

circumstances. None of those circumstances apply in this

situation. This Rule cannot be properly used to simply restate

arguments which the Court has already rejected and the Court will

not permit plaintiffs to do that in this case. Accordingly, the

Court finds that plaintiffs’ pleadings offer neither law nor fact

requiring departure from the Court’s June 2, 2006 Order, and will,

therefore, deny the Plaintiffs’ Crystal Leann “Clarida” Fitzwater,

Jerald W. Fitzwater, and Alton Louis Vaughn, Sr. Motion to Recall,

Set Aside and Vacate June 2, 2006 Order (document #128). 

8. A party’s failure to comply or cooperate in discovery is

discussed in Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Rule 37 provides for sanctions due to the failure to cooperate in

discovery, which includes the dismissal of an action. Fed. R.

Civ. P. 37.

The Court warns the plaintiffs that, in the future, failure

to comply or cooperate in discovery will likely be met with such

sanctions under Rule 37. 

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Crystal Leann

“Clarida” Fitzwater, Jerald W. Fitzwater, and Alton Louis Vaughn,

Sr. Motion to Recall, Set Aside and Vacate June 2, 2006 Order

(document #128) should be, and it hereby is, denied. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/S/JIMM LARRY HENDREN 

JIMM LARRY HENDREN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-03056-JLH Document 140 Filed 07/19/06 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>