Nothing in this ruling is intended to preclude the American Postal Workers Union 1

or any other defendant from making a similar motion again in the future if Plaintiff continues

to be unable or unwilling to participate in discovery in this case. 

 This request was made in her response in opposition to the motion to dismiss 2

without prejudice filed by the American Postal Workers Union (Doc. # 75).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

ALMA T. MCBROOM, )

 )

PLAINTIFF, )

 )

v. ) CASE NO.: 2:06-cv-767-MEF-SRW

 )

JOHN E. POTTER, et al., )

 )

DEFENDANTS. )

ORDER

The Court has carefully considered the Motion to Dismiss Without Prejudice Under

Rule 37(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Doc. # 63) filed by the American Postal

Workers Union and Plaintiff’s opposition to that motion. At this time, the Court is not

inclined to grant the relief requested by motion to dismiss. The Court is also not inclined 1

to grant Plaintiff’s request to indefinitely suspend proceedings in this case until Plaintiff’s

doctor’s “release” her to participate in the litigation. 

2

Plaintiff filed this lawsuit in August of 2006. She was able to represent herself in this

action for several months. During that time, she never mentioned any physical or mental

ailment that impeded her ability to participate in matters relating to this lawsuit. Only after

Case 2:06-cv-00767-MEF-SRW Document 76 Filed 05/15/2007 Page 1 of 4
 The other basis for granting the requested extension was the fact that Plaintiff’s 3

counsel had just recently been retained and needed time to familiarize herself with the case.

2

Plaintiff obtained counsel, in March of 2007, did the Court begin to hear from Plaintiff’s

counsel that Plaintiff was not well enough to participate in discovery or to assist her attorney

in preparing a response to pending dispositive motions. Nevertheless, Plaintiff’s counsel has

supplied this Court with letters which purport to be from Plaintiff’s treating physician about

Plaintiff’s physical and mental problems. Based in part on one of these letters, this Court

already granted Plaintiff’s counsel a sixty-day extension of time for her response in

opposition to the pending dispositive motion filed by the American Postal Workers Union.3

On several occasions since receiving the initial extension of time, Plaintiff’s counsel has

made additional requests for extensions of time. This Court has denied these requests

because they were unreasonable. Despite the Court’s denial of her prior requests, Plaintiff

persists in requesting a general stay of this proceeding because of her health concerns. It

falls to this Court to fashion relief that is equitable to both Plaintiff and the defendants in this

action, including American Postal Workers Union. Any relief that this Court fashions must

also be fair to the many other litigants with matters pending in this court and consistent with

the interests of justice generally. 

What has become increasingly clear from the submissions of both Plaintiff and the

American Postal Workers Union in this case is that the deadlines imposed by the current

Uniform Scheduling Order in place in this case are no longer workable deadlines. The most

Case 2:06-cv-00767-MEF-SRW Document 76 Filed 05/15/2007 Page 2 of 4
 This letter is dated April 24, 2007. 4

3

recent letter from Plaintiff’s doctor indicates that in his view Plaintiff should not participate 4

in stressful legal proceedings for the next forty-five to sixty days. The Court is willing to

give Plaintiff an additional sixty days in which to focus solely on improving her physical and

mental condition. This will necessarily mean that the Uniform Scheduling Order in this case

will have to be vacated and that other deadlines may need to be altered. Plaintiff and her

counsel are cautioned that while the Court is willing at this time to fashion this relief, it will

be far more reluctant to fashion similar relief again in the future should Plaintiff’s condition

fail to improve, even if Plaintiff’s doctor again submits similar letters on her behalf. 

In light of the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED as follows:

(1) The Motion to Dismiss Without Prejudice Under Rule 37(d) of the Federal Rules

of Civil Procedure (Doc. # 63) filed by the American Postal Workers Union is DENIED.

(2) Plaintiff’s renewed request for an indefinite stay of these proceedings contained

in Plaintiff’s Response to American Postal Worker’s Union AFL-CIO’s Motion to Dismiss

Without Prejudice (Doc. # 75) is DENIED.

(3) The Uniform Scheduling Order (Doc. # 52) entered by this Court on March 22,

2007 is VACATED. A new Uniform Scheduling Order shall be issued. Section 7 of the new

Uniform Scheduling Order will specifically address a schedule for discovery which

contemplates a sixty day stay of discovery involving Plaintiff’s direct participation such as

her deposition or written interrogatories, requests for production, and requests for admission

Case 2:06-cv-00767-MEF-SRW Document 76 Filed 05/15/2007 Page 3 of 4
4

directed to Plaintiff. All other discovery from defendants or third-parties may proceed.

(4) The deadlines set by this Court’s March 22, 2007 Order (Doc. # 51) are

MODIFIED as follows: (a) the deadline for Plaintiff’s response in opposition to the pending

Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment of the American

Postal Workers Union AFL-CIO (Doc. # 41) is continued from May 21, 2007 to June 25,

2007; and (b) the deadline for the American Postal Workers Union’s reply is continued from

May 29, 2007 to July 2, 2007. 

(5) Future requests for extension of time will not be viewed favorably. 

DONE this the 15 day of May, 2007. th

 /s/ Mark E. Fuller 

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00767-MEF-SRW Document 76 Filed 05/15/2007 Page 4 of 4