Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alnd-2_05-cv-01745/USCOURTS-alnd-2_05-cv-01745-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Employment Discrimination

---

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

RONDA BRYANT,

Plaintiff,

v.

JEFFERSON COUNTY HOUSING

AUTHORITY, et al.,

Defendants.

}

}

}

}

}

}

}

}

}

}

CIVIL ACTION NO.

05-AR-1745-S

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

The court has before it two motions: the motion to compel

filed by plaintiff, Ronda Bryant (“Bryant”), on January 27, 2006,

and amended on March 3, 2006; and the motion for protective order

filed by defendant, Jefferson County Assisted Housing Corporation,

on February 1, 2006, and joined on February 7, 2006, by the

remaining defendants, Jefferson County Housing Authority, Lewis

McDonald, and David C. Wilkinson. The motions were heard at the

court’s regular motion docket on February 17, 2006. At that

hearing, court granted Bryant one week to amend her motion to

reflect which requests for production were still disputed. At

Bryant’s request, the court extended the deadline for her amended

motion from February 24, 2006, to March 3, 2006. Bryant filed her

amended motion to compel on March 3, 2006, titled as “Plaintiff and

the Jefferson County Assisted Housing Corporation’s Report on

Status of Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Production of Documents.”

After consideration of Bryant’s amended motion to compel, the

court determines that the remaining materials which Bryant seeks

FILED

 2006 Mar-07 PM 02:09

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

N.D. OF ALABAMA

Case 2:05-cv-01745-WMA Document 29 Filed 03/07/06 Page 1 of 2
2

are not unduly burdensome to produce, and are relevant to her claim

for retaliation in violation of the False Claims Act (“FCA”). The

narrowing of Bryant’s requests numbered 9, 15, 16, and 17 overcomes

any claim by defendants that the requests are overly broad.

Defendants’ assertion that the materials requested are not

reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence is likewise

misplaced. If Bryant is to prove that she engaged in protected

activity under the FCA and that an FCA claim was a “distinct

possibility” when she complained to defendants, she could well rely

on the evidence sought in her motion to compel. For the foregoing

reasons, the court hereby GRANTS Bryant’s amended motion to compel,

and ORDERS defendants to produce the materials responsive to

Bryant’s requests for production as phrased in her amended motion.

In light of Don Lusk’s untimely death, defendants are given 30 days

within which to produce the aforementioned materials. Accordingly,

defendants’ motion for protective order is DENIED.

DONE this 7 day of March, 2006. th

_____________________________

WILLIAM M. ACKER, JR.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-01745-WMA Document 29 Filed 03/07/06 Page 2 of 2