Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-5_05-cv-05191/USCOURTS-arwd-5_05-cv-05191-5/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Teri L. Mitchell
Plaintiff
John E. Potter
Defendant
U.S. Postal Service
Defendant

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION

TERI L. MITCHELL PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 05-5191

JOHN E. POTTER, POSTMASTER,

GENERAL, U.S. POSTAL SERVICE DEFENDANT

O R D E R

Now on this 5th day of February, 2007, come on for

consideration Defendant's Motion To Strike Plaintiff's Second

Request For Discovery (document #57) and Defendant's Motion In

Limine Or In The Alternative, To Reconsider The Court's Order Of

January 18, 2007 (document #58), and from said motions, and the

responses thereto, the Court finds and orders as follows:

1. In her pro se Complaint, plaintiff alleges that she was

subjected to discrimination in her employment by the U.S. Postal

Service on the basis of a disability, sex, and race. The gravamen

of her allegations is that defendant refused to give her a light

duty assignment following breast cancer surgery. Plaintiff seeks

damages, reinstatement of sick leave and annual leave, costs and

attorney's fees. 

2. The initial Complaint in this matter was filed on

November 30, 2005. A Scheduling Order entered on March 28, 2006,

set the trial for the week of December 11, 2006, with discovery to

be concluded by September 29, 2006. However, like many pro se

cases, this one was plagued with procedural problems. Eventually

Case 5:05-cv-05191-JLH Document 62 Filed 02/05/07 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: <pageID>
-2-

a second Scheduling Order was entered, which set the matter for

trial the week of April 30, 2007, and established January 19,

2007, as the deadline for completion of discovery. 

On January 16, 2007, Mitchell filed a document entitled

"Plaintiff's Second Request for Discovery." Defendant moves to

strike this request as untimely. He points out that pursuant to

F.R.C.P. 34(b), a party has thirty days to respond to a request

for production of documents (which is the nature of the discovery

requests in Mitchell's document), and that Mitchell had opposed

his earlier request to extend discovery. 

While the pleadings of pro se litigants are construed

liberally in light of their lack of training in the law, Haines v.

Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972), their unrepresented status does not

excuse them from following the rules of procedure, ACKRA Direct

Marketing Corp. v. Fingerhut Corp., 86 F.3d 852 (8th Cir. 1996).

Mitchell's only argument is that she made the discovery

requests before January 19, 2007, which was before the discovery

deadline. However, submission of the discovery requests on the

eve of the deadline does not allow the opposing party any response

time, making it impossible for objections to be ironed out in a

timely fashion. As the Scheduling Order cautioned, "[e]xcept in

extraordinary circumstances, problems with discovery which are not

brought to the Court's attention in time for the opponent to make

a proper response and the Court to make an informed ruling prior

Case 5:05-cv-05191-JLH Document 62 Filed 02/05/07 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: <pageID>
-3-

to JANUARY 19, 2007 will be deemed waived." That caution has

application here. There do not appear to be any extraordinary

circumstances, and, indeed, the information sought by Mitchell

appears to be data, the existence of which she should have been

aware of earlier than January 16, 2007. Thus she will not be

foreclosed by an arbitrary deadline from obtaining the

information, but by her own delay in requesting it. The Court

concludes that Defendant's Motion To Strike Plaintiff's Second

Request For Discovery should be granted.

3. Defendant also suggests that the Court revisit its

earlier ruling that Mitchell need not provide information about

mental health care she may have received from the age of 18

forward. The Court is not convinced by defendant's cited

authorities that it should alter its ruling, finding such ruling

consistent with Supreme Court precedent in Jaffee v. Redmond, 518

U.S. 1 (1996), and with the persuasive analysis of Jaffee -- in

light of facts similar to those in the case at bar -- in

Vanderbilt v. Town of Chilmark, 174 F.R.D. 225 (D. Mass. 1997).

Defendant's Motion In Limine Or In The Alternative, To Reconsider

The Court's Order Of January 18, 2007, will, therefore, be denied.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant's Motion To Strike

Plaintiff's Second Request For Discovery (document #57) is

granted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant's Motion In Limine Or In

Case 5:05-cv-05191-JLH Document 62 Filed 02/05/07 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: <pageID>
-4-

The Alternative, To Reconsider The Court's Order Of January 18,

2007 (document #58) is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 /s/ Jimm Larry Hendren 

JIMM LARRY HENDREN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 5:05-cv-05191-JLH Document 62 Filed 02/05/07 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: <pageID>