UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Sharon Few

v. Civil No. 06-cv-427-JL 

Liberty Mutual Insurance

Company et al.

 O R D E R

The court has reviewed the parties' myriad motions to

compel, for sanctions, to strike, for discovery, for extensions,

and for dismissal. The court has bent over backwards (see

endorsed orders of 1/30/08, 2/11/08, 4/8/08, 4/21/08, 5/5/08,

documents nos. 88 and 92) to accommodate the pro se plaintiff,

who appears to have unlimited energy and ability to engage in

inflammatory motion practice, but claims an inability, due to

exhaustion, stress, and illness, to address the merits of her

claim by making the required filings under Local Rule 9.4. 

To the extent the plaintiff's "Notice of Appeal" (document

no. 98) is a motion or petition to this court to file an

interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292 or Federal Rule of

Appellate Procedure 5, the motion/petition is DENIED. Appeals on

some of the orders referenced in the "Notice" are time-barred;

none of the issues referenced in the "Notice" have any likelihood

Case 1:06-cv-00427-JL Document 106 Filed 06/04/08 Page 1 of 3
2

whatsoever of being accepted by the Court of Appeals for

appellate review. 

Defendants' motion for leave to file reply (document no. 86)

is GRANTED.

Plaintiff's motion/request for production of documents

(document no. 102) is DENIED pursuant to Local Rule 9.4(d). 

Plaintiff's motion for an extension of time (document no.

101) is GRANTED because the court did not address it timely, and

not because it has merit. The motion for judgement shall be

filed on or before June 20, 2008. If plaintiff has not filed the

motion by that date, the defendants may file their motion for

judgment on or before July 20, 2008. If the plaintiff wishes,

she may file a Statement of Facts in compliance with the court's

May 8, 2008 order (document no. 88), as the court finds and rules

that her May 16, 2008 filing does not comply with that order. If

not, the parties may proceed on the Statement of Facts filed by

the defendants (document no. 68). The plaintiff should note that

the court is well aware of her arguments pertaining to affidavits

filed by defense counsel, and is more than able to evaluate the

validity of those affidavits and defendants' counsel's compliance

with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rules. 

All other pending motions are DENIED, without prejudice to

being revisited both sua sponte and at a party's request made no

Case 1:06-cv-00427-JL Document 106 Filed 06/04/08 Page 2 of 3
3

sooner than 10 days after the filing of the defendant's motion

for judgment. No other motions will be entertained by the court

until on or after that date. The court has no interest in the

parties' procedural skirmishing (which has been caused, in

fairness to defendants' counsel, primarily by the plaintiff's

conduct as a pro se litigant), and is interested solely in

facilitating the litigation of the merits of the case. 

SO ORDERED.

 

Joseph N. Laplante

United States District Judge

Dated: June 4, 2008

cc: Sharon Few, pro se

Guy P. Tully, Esq.

Jeffrey Scott Brody, Esq.

Case 1:06-cv-00427-JL Document 106 Filed 06/04/08 Page 3 of 3