Al so pe nd ingbe fo re the Court are se ve ra l mo tio ns fo r s umm ary jud g me nt f

ile d b y Ms. 1 Rob ins on -R e e de r a

nd a mot ion fo r s umm ary

jud g me nt f

ile d b y AC E. Ad dit ion a lly , M s. Robinson-Reeder

has filed a

"Motion for

Fa ilure to Provide COBRA N otice Penalties Ar e As se sse d Und e r 2 9 U .S. C. 1 16 1, " wh ic h in su bs tanc e is a

mot ion fo r p art ia l summa

ry jud g me nt. The Court set a dispositive brief ing sc hedule in its September 8, 2009 Or der, a nd will resolve the pendingsummary

judgme nt motions at the conc lusion of that schedule. UNITED STAT ES DIS TRICT COURT F OR THE D ISTRIC T OF CO LU M BIA JACQUELINE T. ROB INSON-REEDER, P la in t if f, v. Ci vilAc ti on N o. 08 -1 57 7 ( JD B) AMERICANCOUNCIL ON EDUC. Defendan t.
M EM OR AN DU M OP IN ION This is a Title VI Ireta liation case br oug ht by J acque line Robinson-Reeder , proce eding pro se, a g ainst her f

ormer e mployer, the Americ an Council on Education ("A CE") . Be fore the Court are a number

of motions filed by

both parties: [53] defe ndant' s motion for sanctions; [58] plaintiff' s motion t o preve nt misuse of an ele ctronic e mail acc ount; [ 80] pl aintiff' s motion for an
e xten sio n o f t ime to o bta in wri tte n inte rr og atorie s; [8 4] pl a int if f' s mo tio n f

or sa nc tio ns and

to
c o mp e l ; an d

[ 8 6 ] p l a i n t i f

f ' s m o t i o nt o o b t a i no r i g i n a l d o c um e n t s i nd i s c o v e r y. 1 AN AL YSI S I. De fend ant 's M ot ion forSanc ti ons ACE has filed [53] a moti on for sa nctions under F eder al Rule of Civil P roce dure 37(b)( 2)(A) based on Ms. Robinson-Reede r' s failure to serve initial disclosures on June 24, 2009,
a s r e qu ir e d b y

the Court . Se e Min

ute Or de r, June 9, 20 09 . A lth ou g h A CE c on c e de s th at Ms
.-2-

Rob ins on -R e e de r p ro vid e d s ome dis c ov e ry on June 24 , 2 00 9, he r f

ili nga lle g e dly

did no t c onta in the information re quired by Fe dera l Rule of Civil Procedur e 26(a )(1) . See De f.' s Mot. for Sanctions [Docket Entry

53], at 1; i d., Ex hibit A ("Plaintiff' s Reply to First Set of Interrog atories/Reque sts for Production and Admission") . For her pa rt, Ms. Robinson-Reeder
re sp on ds tha

t he r d isc ov e ry

fi lin gsatis fi e d th e F e de ra l Ru le s a nd the re fo re " De fe nd ant a

pp e ars to be arguing a

bout the answe rs of the pla intiff." Pl.' s Opp' n to Def.' s Mot. for Sanctions [Docket Entr y 55 ], at 5. She su g g e sts that de fe nd ant' s a rg ume nt i s o ve rwro ught, a s sh e sh ou ld n ot b e he ld t o th e s t an d ar d

o f anat t o rn ey

re s p o n d i n g t o i n i t i al d i s cl o s ure s . I d
. at5
. Inan y ev en t , AC E 's "r equest spec ifically

stated ' answe r the que stions to t he best of your ability .' " I d. Rule 37 of the F eder al Rules of Civil P roce dure pe rmits a court to sanc tion a party that fa ils to o be y

a dis c ov e ry

or de r. Se e F e d. R. C iv. P. 3 7(b) . H e re , A CE s ug g e sts that be c a us e Ms. Rob ins on -R e e de r' s June 24 , 2 00 9 f ili ngdo e s n ot p ro vid e the inf or matio n r e qu ir e d b y

Rul e 26 (a)( 1) , s he ha s f

a ile d to c omp ly

wi th t he Court ' s d isc ov e ry

or de r. Th e Court

is unw ill ingto construe Ms. Robinson-Reede r' s filing so ha rshly . Although she does not provide a ll the information re quired by

Rule 26(a) (1), she did respond to at lea st some of ACE' s discovery
re qu es t s b y

th e C o urt 's d ea d l i n e. An d AC E n o wh er e c o n t en d s th atM s . R o b i n s o n -R ee d er 's failure to provide ade quate initial disclosures has ha mpere d its abilit y

to liti g ate this ca se. See Bonds v. District of

Columbi a, 93 F .3d 801, 808 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (a court should consider pr e jud ic e in d e te rm ini ngwh e the r s e ve re dis c ov e ry sa nc tio ns are jus tif

ie d) . T he Court

is
c on fi de nt t

hat sa nc tio ns are unne c e ssa

ry he re to " e na

ble [the Court ] to d isc ha

rg e e ff ic ie ntl y [its] fr ont- lin e re sp on sib ili ty

fo r o pe ratin gthe jud ic ia l sy ste m." B ri sto l Pe tr ole um C or p. v. Ha rris, 901 F.2d 165, 167 ( D.C. Cir. 1990). Acc ording ly , the Court denies de fenda nt's motion forMs. Robinson-Reeder f inds it particularly

unfair that ACE contacts he r via e mail even 2 tho ugh s he " wa s o rd e re d n ot t o u se e le c tr on ic ma il f or de liv e ri e s to the de fe nd ant. " Pl. ' s Mo t. t o Pr e ve nt M isu se , at 1. Th at or de r, ho we ve r, do e s n ot b e ar o n M s. Rob ins on -R e e de r' s r e qu e st he re . Sh e pr e vio us ly

so ught l e ave of

the Court

to d isp e ns e wi th t

he no rm a l se rv ic e re qu ir e me nts un d er Fe d
. R
. C i v . P
. 5 (b ) b y

"m ak [ i n g] h er

fi l i n gs wi thth e C l erk 's o ff i ce an d th ens en d [ i n g] defe ndant' s counsel notice of such filing s via email." Robinson-Reeder v. Amer. Council on Educ., 626 F . Supp. 2d 11, 19 (D.D.C. 2009). The Court pr eclude d Ms. Robinson-Reeder f rom disreg arding"the normal ser vice r equire ments set forth in Fe d. R. Civ. P . 5." I d.

-3- sanc tio ns . II. P lai nt iff's M ot ion to P r e ve ntM isus e of an Ele c tr oni c Em ailAc c ount Ms. Rob ins on -R e e de r h a s f ile d [58 ] a m oti on

to p re c lud e AC E f

ro m c onta c tin gMs. Rob ins on -R e e de r v ia

e ma il. Ac c or din gto M s. Rob ins on -R e e de r, " the de fe nd ant c ontin ue s to us e the plaintiff' s email ac count without her c onsent." Pl.'s Mot. to Prevent Misuse [Docket Entry 58], at 1. ACE responds that it emails her "r eg ardingcase manag ement issues, such a s 2 reque sting he r conse nt for non-dispositive motions" bec ause e mail is "the only means by

which th e parti es can co mm un ica te abo utvari ou s i ss ues th at n eces sar il y ari se as th e cas e pro gress es. " Def .' s Opp' n to Pl.'s Mot. to Prevent Misuse [Docket Entry 64], at 2. Ms. Robinson-Reeder pr ovides no justification for he r motion. In fac t, ACE offer s that she has initiated communication through e mail. See Def .' s Opp' n to Pl.'s Mot. to Prevent Misuse, at 2. The pa

rties her e, as in a

ny litigation, must be able to c onfer about issues that arise during the litigation, includingdiscussing a ny nondispositi ve motions before their filing . See L ocal Civil Rule 7(m). The Court will not discourag e communication between the parties by limit ing the means of

communication. Ther efor e, the Court denie s Ms. Robins on-Reede r' s motion. Fur ther, Ms. Robinson-Reede r must provide an e mail addre ss at which opposingcounsel c an contac t her -- plaintiff did, afte r all, initiate this case.Ms. Robinson-Reeder a lso contends that ACE fa iled to serve disc overy require d in the 3 Court ' s Septe mbe r 8 , 2 00 9 O rd e r. Se e Pl. ' s Mo t. f or Exte ns ion , at 1. AC E c on c lus ive ly d em o n s tra t es th ati ts erv edth i s d i s co v ery o nM s . R o b i n s o n -R ee d er . S ee De f. 's Op p 'nt o P l
. 's Mot. for Extension [ Docke t Entry 82], Ex hibit A.

-4- III. P laintif

f' s Motion to Obtain Written Interr ogatorie s Ms. Rob ins on -R e e de r h a s a lso fi le d [80 ] a m oti on that th e Court

c on str ue s a s a re qu e st for a n extension of discovery

to obtain depositions by

written questions. She sug g ests that she wishes extra time "to e x amine the discove ry from the de fenda

nt used in the plaintiff' s deposition on September 9, 2009," and to " depose a ny person" through written questions. Pl.'s Mot. for Ex tension [Docket Entry

80], at 1 (citing F ed. R. Civ. P. 31(a)(1))
. ACE responds by arguing 3 that discovery

closed prior

to Ms. Robi nson-Reede r' s motion. S ee D ef.' s Opp' n to Pl.'s Mot. for Ex tension, at 2-3. And it notes that her three motions for summary judgme nt are inconsistent with her re quest for f

urther disc overy . I d. Discover y in this case close d on August 28, 2009, and Ms. Robinson-Reeder pr ovides no
rea son why

the Court should ex tend that date. N or ca n she re ly on the Court' s September 8, 2009 Orde r for justification. In that order , the Court permitted the pa rties to complete thre e outstanding de positions after the discove ry deadline; the Court did not authorize a g ener al extension of discovery . Fur ther, such a

n extension would be inconsistent with t he cur rent po sture of

the c a se , a s b oth

pa rt ie s h ave fi le d mo tio ns fo r s umm ary jud g me nt. Ac c or din g ly , M s. Robinson-Reeder ' s motion i s denied. IV. P laintif

f' s Motion for San ctions and to Com pel Ms. Rob ins on -R e e de r h a s a lso fi le d [84 ] a m oti on to s anc tio n d e fe nd ant' s c ouns e l and toTo the extent that Ms. Robi nson-Reede r re quests sanctions, see Pl.'s Mot. to Sanction 4 and to C omp e l [Do c ke t E ntr

y 84 ], at 2, the y

are unwa rr ante d. Th e a c c us atio ns ma de a g a ins t Ke arn s are de vo id o f e vid e nti ary su pp or t. P utt inga sid e the re qu ir e me nts of F e d. R. C iv. P. 11(c) , which we re not followe d by plaintiff her e, nothingalleg ed by plaintiff rises to the leve l of conduct that is sanc tionable under Rule 11. -5- c o mp e l d i s c o v e r

y. S h e c o n t e n d s th ats h e h a s b e e n " d e n i e d th e r i g h tt o o b t a i nD i s c o v e r y" 4 beca use Christine Morfit and Coleen Collins objected to some of the ir written deposition questions. Pl.'s Mot. to Sanction and to Compel, at 1. For its part, ACE r esponds that " it has fully responde d to Ms. Robi nson-Reede r' s discovery reque sts and complied with Orde rs of the Court," e ven though Ms. Robinson-Reeder ha s exceede d the limits on discovery set forth in the Fe dera l Rules. Def.' s Opp' n to Pl.'s Mot. to Sanction and to Compel [ Docke t Entry 87], at 3; see id. at 4. Mo re ov e r, AC E a rgue s th at whe re it o bje c te d to Ms. Rob ins on -R e e de r' s q ue sti on s, it d id so beca use they "d[id] notrelate to the alleg ations and issues ra ised in this case." I d. at 4. AC E m isa

pp re he nd s Ms . Ro bin so n- Re e de r' s a rgume nt. She a sse rt s th at A CE f a ile d to fu l l y an s we r t h e w ri tt end ep o s i t i o nqu es t i o n s p ro v i d edt o M s . M o rf i tan d M s . C o l l i n s . AC E 's response , howeve r, invokes its interrog atory answe rs in arguing that it satisfied its di scover y obligations. S ee D ef.' s Opp' n to Pl.'s Mot. to Sanction and to Compel at 3 ("A CE has g one out of its way to answer

Ms. Robinson-Reeder' s discovery questions by

respondingto her e igty-seve n i n t erro gat o ri es . . . . ") ; i d
. , E x h i b i tA ( De fe n d an t 's Ob j ec t i o n s an d

R es p o n s es t o P l ai n t i ff

's Discover y Requests Date d J une 29, 2009). The se interr og atory answe rs re veal nothingabout wh e the r A CE p ro pe rl y

re sp on de d to the writt e n d e po sit ion s q ue sti on s. Ne ve rt he le ss, the Court

ha s r e vie we d th e writt e n d e po sit ion re sp on se s p ro vid e d b y

Ms. Morfit and Ms. Collins. S ee D ef.' s Opp' n to Pl.'s Mot. for Extension, Ex hibit A. Both witnesses object to many

of Ms. Robinson-Reeder ' s questions based on the same asser tion of irrele vance :-6-

AC E o bje c ts t o th e Qu e sti on on the g ro un d th at it

is n ot r e a so na

bly c a lc ulate d to le a d to the dis c ov e ry

of a dmi ssi ble e vid e nc e be c a us e it r e late s to the c la ims in Case No. 1:07-c v-00880, which w ere dismiss ed by an Or der dated J anuar

y 29, 2008. This case is lim ited to the Plaintiff's a lleg ation that "sinc e her employ ment ended w ith the defe ndant Amer ican Council on Education ("A CE") , defe ndant has provided ne g ative job re fer ence s in retaliation for the charg e of discrimination fi le d b y pla int if f a g a ins t A CE w iththe U. S. E qu a l E mpl oy me nt O pp or

tun ity Commi ssion ("EE OC") in Dece mber 2006. In addition, the period for written discovery in Case No. 2008 CA 006141 B in the Superior Court for the District of Columbi a close d on J uly

20, 2009. Prior to servingthese re quests, Ms. RobinsonRe e de r h a d f

ile d a Mo tio n f or Summary

Judgme nt i n Su

pe ri or Court . I d., Ex hibit A (citation and quotation omitted). Fe d. R. Civ. P . 26(b)( 1) re quires the pr oduction of material that is "re levant to any party' s claim or def

ense." The burde n is on the responding part y to "pro vi de true, ex pl ici t, res po ns iv e, co mp let e andcand idans wers to th e in terrogat ori es. " Chubb Integrate d Sy s. Ltd. v. Nat' l Ba nk of Washington, 103 F .R.D. 52, 61 (D.D.C. 1984). Her e, the witnesse s' repe ated r eleva nce obje ction does not ade quately explain how the i n fo rm at i o nre qu es t edi na p art i cu l ar d ep o s i t i o nqu es t i o ni s unre l at edt o M s . R o b i n s o n -R ee d er 's claim. For

example, Ms. Col lins invokes the releva nce obje ction in response to a question
as k i n g fo r d et ai l s ab o utth e c o mp l ai n t s aga i n s tM s . R o b i n s o n -R ee d er . S ee De f. 's Op p 'nt o P l
. 's Mo t. f or Exte ns ion , E xhibi t A(e xami natio n o f C ole e n Co lli ns , q ue sti on 2) . D e ta ils a

bo ut t he se complaints, howeve r, possibly could inform the c ontent of the ne g ative job re fer ence s defe ndant alleg edly provided or ide ntify

individuals who were involved in the alleg ed re taliation. At the least, the witnesse s' objections do not provide the ne cessa ry detail for the Court to credit the conclusion of irr eleva

nce. T here fore , the Court g rants Ms. Robinson-Reeder ' s motion. To be sure, the w itnesses may

still object to questions on rele vancy g rounds, but any

such objec tionsThe Court is awa re that Ms. Robi nson-Reede r filed thre e summary judgme nt motions 5 befor e she obta ined Ms. Colli ns' s and Ms. Morfit' s written deposition responses. The Court order ed that these witnesses be de posed af ter Ms. Robinson-Reede r filed he r motions. Ac co rd i n gl y , o rd er i n g th i s "ad d i t i o n al " d i s co v er y i s n o ti n co n s i s t en twi thM s . R o b i n s o n -R ee d er 's reque st for judg ment. Al tho ugh M s. Rob ins on -R e e de r s e e ks to o bta in t he or ig ina l do c ume nt u

nd e r F e d. R. 6 Civ . P. 36 , th at Ru le do e s n ot r e qu ir e dis c los ur e of the or ig ina l do c ume nt. The Court will not permit any further discovery

in this case bey

ond what it has 7 permitted in this Memorandum Opinion and ac company ing O rder
. -7- mus t be su

pp or te d b y de ta ile d e xplanatio ns . 5 V. Motion for Original Docum ents in Discovery Ms. Rob ins on -R e e de r' s f

ina l mo tio n, [86] s tyle d a s a " Mo tio n f

or Orig ina l D oc ume nt i n Di sc ov e ry ," is e sse nti a lly a mot ion un de r F e d. R. C iv. P. 3 4 to ins pe c t a pa rt ic ula r d oc ume nt. 6 See F ed. R. Civ. P. 34(a)(1). A ccor ding to Ms. Robinson-Reede r, bec ause A CE deposed he r about " ' the color of

pen she use d' " to sign a hea lth benefit enr ollment form, she should be permitted to inspect the or igina l document, which, of course , ref

lects the c olor of her

signature. Pl.'s Mot. for Origina l Document [Docket Entry 86], at 1. ACE responds that ACE has alre ady disclosed a c opy

of the doc ument, and ther efor e should not be re quired to provide the orig inal as
we l l
. S ee De f. 's Op p 'nt o P l
. 's M o t . fo r O ri gi n al Do cu m en t[ Do ck etE n try 8 8 ] , at1
. Al th o u gh ACE is corre ct that, in g ener al, black a nd white copied doc uments satisfy a par ty ' s discovery obligations, here ACE ha s put a color or a mar k on the orig inal enrollment for m at issue. There fore , ACE must either ar rang e for Ms. Robinson-Reeder to inspec t the orig inal enrollment fo rm at c ouns e l' s o ff

ic e , o r p ro vid e he r w itha c olo r c op y

of the or ig ina l f

or m. 7 CO NC LU SION A sepa rate order acc ompanies this Memorandum Opinion.-8- / s / J OHN D. B ATES Un i t edS t at es Di s tri ctJ u d ge Dated: Oc tober 26, 2009 Copy to: J acque line T. Robinson-Reeder 2140 Br ooks Drive Apar tment 421 District Heights, MD 20747