Cortez v. Hosto Buchan Prater & Lawrence PLLC

Filing 122

ORDER denying 44 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment without prejudice to renew; finding as moot 80 Motion to Strike ; denying 83 Motion to Exclude; granting 87 Motion to Compel; granting 89 Motion for Reconsideration ; denying 91 Motion for Summary Judgment without prejudice to renew; denying 98 Motion to Exclude; granting 100 Motion to Compel; finding as moot 120 Motion to Strike. The Court's Order of September 23, 2011 is set aside, excluding Plaintiff's lay witnesses. The Court will issue a new Scheduling Order. Signed by Judge James M. Moody on 10/26/11. (kpr)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
WESTERN DIVISION
BLANCA R. CORTEZ
VS.

PLAINTIFF
NO. 4:10CV00076

HOSTO, BUCHAN, PRATER &
LAWRENCE, Attorneys at Law, PLLC

DEFENDANTS
ORDER

By Order entered September 23, 2011, the Court excluded Plaintiff from calling lay
witnesses Crystal Anderson, Lashikka Williams, Jackie Earl, Chasiti Jones, Kerri Porchia,
Angela Ward Rooney, Al Reynolds and Jessie Jette in the trial of this case because Plaintiff
failed to timely provide contact information so that the Defendants could have the opportunity to
depose these witnesses prior to trial. Pending is Defendants’ second motion to exclude lay
witnesses (docket # 83), Plaintiff’s motion to exclude potential witness Peterson (docket # 98),
Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the Order excluding lay witnesses (docket # 89), and
Plaintiff’s motions to compel (docket #’s 87 and 100).
On October 4, 2011, the Court cancelled the jury trial scheduled to begin the week of
October 24, 2011. Based upon the pleadings filed, the parties’ disputes stem mainly from
Plaintiff’s failure to make Rule 26 disclosures and failure to timely identify and provide contact
information regarding witnesses. Further, Plaintiff failed to timely file motions to compel
discovery prior to the discovery cut-off, when she found Defendants’ responses to discovery
inadequate1. The deadlines set by the Court in its scheduling order are to be followed by the

1

It is well established in this Circuit that “a party is responsible for the actions and conduct
of his counsel and that, under appropriate circumstances, dismissal or default may be entered
against a party as a result of counsel’s actions.” Boogaerts v. Bank of Bradley, 961 F. 2d 765 (8th
Cir. 1992).

parties. However, because the case has been bumped from the trial docket, the Court will enter
an amended scheduling order allowing the parties additional time to complete discovery. The
Plaintiff has admitted that she never provided her Rule 26 disclosures. Plaintiff is directed to do
so within fifteen (15) days of the entry of this Order. The parties are directed to communicate,
attempt to resolve all discovery disputes and are cautioned to observe and abide by the deadlines
set by the Court.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration, docket # 89, is GRANTED. The
Court will set aside its order entered September 23, 2011, excluding Plaintiff’s lay witnesses.
Defendants’ second motion to exclude, docket # 83 and Plaintiff’s motion to exclude, docket #
98 are DENIED.

Plaintiff’s motions to compel, docket #’s 87 and 100 are GRANTED.

Defendants are directed to respond to Interrogatory No. 16 regarding other EEOC complaints and
to provide the entire Arkansas Workers Compensation file relating to Plaintiff’s claim.
As the discovery deadline has been extended, the Court will set a new dispositive motions
deadline. The parties’ motions for partial summary judgment, docket # 44, and for summary
judgment, docket # 91 are denied without prejudice to renew. The motions to strike, docket #’s
80 and 120 are moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 26th day of October, 2011.

__________________________________________
James M. Moody
United States District Judge