MINOR CHILD v. MUSCOGEE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD et al

Filing 45

ORDER granting 35 Motion to Dismiss Complaint; finding as moot 36 Motion for Summary Judgment; finding as moot 42 Motion to Strike ; finding as moot 44 Motion to Strike. Ordered by US DISTRICT JUDGE CLAY D LAND on 05/11/2015. (CGC)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
COLUMBUS DIVISION
MINOR CHILD ex rel. LEONTYNATE
CAREY,

*
*

Plaintiff,
*
vs.

CASE NO. 4:13-CV-468 (CDL)

*
MUSCOGEE COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT
and TONYA DOUGLASS,
*
Defendants.

*
O R D E R

Plaintiff
Douglass,

an

Leontynate
elementary

Carey

alleges

school

that

principal,

Defendant

Tonya

violated

the

constitutional rights of Carey’s daughter J.C., an elementary
school

student.

Carey,

proceeding

pro

se,

brought

suit

on

behalf of J.C. against Douglass and Defendant Muscogee County
School
claims.

District.

Defendants

now

seek

dismissal

of

Carey’s

As discussed below, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF

No. 35) is granted.
DISCUSSION
When Carey failed to comply with her discovery obligations,
Defendants filed a motion to compel.

The Court granted the

motion to compel and ordered Carey to respond to Defendants’
discovery requests.

The Court also ordered Carey to submit to a

deposition by November 21, 2014.

The Court emphasized: “If

Carey wants to proceed in this action, Carey must comply with
her discovery obligations.”

Order Granting Mot. to Compel 2

(Oct. 10, 2014), ECF No. 26.

The Court also stated: “If Carey

fails to comply with this Order, this action will be dismissed
under

Federal

Rule

of

Civil

Procedure

37(b)(2)(A)(v).”

Id.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b)(2)(A)(v) permits dismissal
of an action due to a party’s failure to comply with a court
order.
Defendants
respond

to

represent

that

interrogatories

and

Carey
did

did
not

not

sufficiently

produce

responsive to Defendants’ document requests.

documents

Defendants also

assert that Carey did not appear for her scheduled deposition.
Carey claims that there was a mix-up that caused her to miss
that deposition.

Carey did visit the office of Defendants’

counsel on the afternoon of the deposition deadline.

Defendants

began an impromptu deposition after locating a court reporter,
but Carey left the deposition several minutes after it started.
Carey

acknowledges

deposition

but

left

that
when

she

started

counsel

to

began

participate
asking

in

the

questions

she

believed were irrelevant, such as questions about J.C.’s father.
To date, Carey has not completed a deposition in this case.
The Court warned Carey that it would dismiss her action if
she did not submit to a deposition or respond to Defendants’
written discovery requests.

The Court understands that Carey

2

did not like some of the questions Defendants’ counsel asked
during her brief deposition, especially questions about J.C.’s
father.

But

Defendants’
harass

nothing

counsel

Carey.

in

the

present

asked

any

questions

Family

background

record

suggests

that

questions

were
are

that

meant

to

typical

in

depositions and are not irrelevant because they are calculated
to find out, among other things, who potential witnesses are.
Nothing in the present record suggests that Carey was justified
in walking out of the deposition, and the Court finds that Carey
did

not

submit

comply
to

requests.

a

with

the

deposition

Court’s
and

Order

respond

to

that

required

Defendants’

Accordingly, her Complaint is dismissed.

her

to

discovery
All of the

other pending motions are moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED, this 11th day of May, 2015.
S/Clay D. Land
CLAY D. LAND
CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

3