The opinion of the court was delivered by: HUGH SCOTT, Magistrate Judge
The defendant, Grey Line Tours ("GLT") has filed a motion to
dismiss the complaint in this case due to an alleged failure of
the plaintiff's counsel to comply with discovery orders. In the
alternative, the defendant seeks a court order awarding
compelling the plaintiff to comply with discovery requests, a
modification of the scheduling order, and other sanctions.
(Docket No. 29).*fn1
The plaintiff, Tijuana M. Scarbrough ("Scarbrough"), brings
this action asserting that GLT discriminated against her because
of her race. She alleges that one of her co-workers rubbed his
penis on her on various occasions and that she complained to GLT
about this conduct. She also alleges that her co-workers used
racial slurs against her. Finally, Scarbrough asserts that she
was physically threatened. (Docket No. 1, ¶ 19). GLT cites to the plaintiff's failure to respond to a document
demand and the submission of an unverified interrogatory response
which prompted an initial motion to compel. That motion was
eventually withdrawn after the plaintiff took steps to respond to
discovery demands. The defendant also cites to the fact that the
plaintiff's counsel and the plaintiff left the plaintiff's
deposition before it was completed. (Docket No. 31). It appears
that the plaintiff's counsel objected to the defense counsel
questioning the plaintiff regarding documents without providing
plaintiff's counsel a copy of the document to read along during
the questioning. In this regard, the plaintiff's counsel was
relying on a guideline published by Hon. Leslie Foschio with
respect to depositions. That guideline, which the plaintiff's
counsel asserts reflects local customary practice, requires that
copies of documents presented to the witness be made available to
opposing counsel so that counsel can follow along with the
questioning.
The Court notes that plaintiff's counsel has failed to appear
for at least one Court appearance in this case. In addition, the
plaintiff has advised the Court that she has had difficulty
communicating with her counsel on occasions. On October 24, 2003,
the plaintiff and plaintiff's counsel, as well as defense
counsel, appeared before the Court, at which time these issues
were discussed. It appeared at that time that plaintiff and
plaintiff's counsel had communicated. In a separate Report &
Recommendation, the Court has recommended that the motion for
sanctions be denied.
With respect to the plaintiff's deposition, the Court directs
that the plaintiff submit to a new deposition and that at the
deposition defense counsel shall provide the plaintiff's counsel
with copies of any documents presented to the plaintiff for
questioning so that plaintiff's counsel can follow along. While
not a per se rule, such a practice appears to be reasonable. The Court also directs that the following Amended Scheduling
Order apply in this case:
1. All discovery in this case shall be completed by May 7,
2004;
2. A motion for summary judgment may be filed on or before June
4, 2004;
3. If no motion for summary judgment is filed, pretrial
statements shall be filed on or before July 2, 2004;
4. A final pretrial conference shall take place before Hon.
William M. Skretny on July 29, 2004 at 9:00 am;
5. The trial in this matter shall commence on September 21,
2004 at 9:30 am.