Hale v. Emporia State University et al

Filing 77

ORDER REGARDING DISPUTED LANGUAGE PLAINTIFF PROPOSES TO INCLUDE IN THE PRETRIAL ORDER. Signed by Magistrate Judge Teresa J. James on 3/5/2018.(Mailed to pro se plaintiff by regular mail). (byk)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
ANGELICA HALE,
Plaintiff,
v.
EMPORIA STATE UNIVERSITY (ESU),
GWEN ALEXANDER, PH.D.,
DAVID CORDLE, PH.D.,
JACKIE VIETTI, PH.D.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 16-cv-4182-DDC-TJJ

ORDER REGARDING DISPUTED LANGUAGE
PLAINTIFF PROPOSES TO INCLUDE IN THE PRETRIAL ORDER
The pretrial conference was held in this case on February 20, 2018. During the
conference, the parties were directed to make revisions to their proposed pretrial order and
resubmit it to chambers. The parties have resubmitted their revised proposed pretrial order, but
indicate they have disputes regarding specific language proposed by Plaintiff in sections 7 and 8
of the pretrial order. The Court will address each dispute below.
I.

PRETRIAL ORDER SECTION 7
In accordance with the revisions discussed at the pretrial conference, Defendants added

the following sentence to Section 7 (Discovery): “At the pre-trial conference, Plaintiff indicated
she needed to conduct no further discovery.” Plaintiff proposes to add on the phrase “but this is
now subject to the pending motion, Plaintiff’s objection to Magistrate’s Order, ECF 73.”
Defendants object to this addition.
The Court understands Plaintiff’s proposed additional language as conditioning or
caveating her earlier statements about not needing to conduct further discovery, made during the

pretrial conference, so that those earlier statements are now subject to the Court’s rulings on
Defendants’ motion for leave to conduct depositions out of time and Plaintiff’s objection to the
Magistrate Judge’s order granting in part and denying in part her motion to compel ESU’s
litigation file. The Court will permit the addition of Plaintiff’s proposed language but revises it
for clarity so that the second sentence of Section 7 will read, “At the pretrial conference, Plaintiff
indicated she needed to conduct no further discovery. Plaintiff has since indicated that the filing
of Defendants’ motions to take depositions out of time and to extend the dispositive motion
deadline, and her Objection to Magistrate Judge’s Order, ECF No. 73, may alter her position.”
II.

PRETRIAL ORDER SECTION 8
Defendants object to Plaintiff listing her objection to Magistrate Judge’s Order as a

“pending motion,” as it was not pending at the time of the pretrial conference, but filed later.
Defendants’ position is that the pretrial order should reflect what motions are pending at the time
of the pretrial conference, referencing the pretrial order instructions.
The instructions to the pretrial form for Section 8a (Pending Motions) require the parties
to “[l]ist any pending motions, including the date of filing and the ECF document number.” For
Section 8b, the instructions state parties are to “[l]ist all motions that the parties reasonably
expect to file after the pretrial conference and before trial.” Plaintiff may list her Objection to
Magistrate Judge’s Order not as a pending motion, but as an additional pretrial motion since it
was filed after the pretrial conference. For consistency, the Court will add the two motions filed
by Defendants after the pretrial conference to this pretrial order section as well and add a
footnote that all three motions were filed after the pretrial conference. The Court will also
include in Section 8b (Additional Pretrial Motions) the three other motions Plaintiff seeks to add
2

to her list of motions she intends to file before trial.
Defendants also object to Plaintiff’s proposed inclusion of language stating she may
request expert opinion on handwriting. The Court agrees with Defendants that the pretrial order
should reflect “None” in this section because this was not raised or discussed at the pretrial
conference and Plaintiff’s deadline to disclose an expert has passed. Plaintiff’s proposed
language regarding a potential request for a handwriting expert will not be included in the
pretrial order.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants’ objections to Plaintiff’s inclusion of
a reference to the objection to Magistrate Judge’s order are sustained in part and overruled in part.
The Court will revise and file the parties’ proposed pretrial order in accordance with the rulings
set out herein.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated in Kansas City, Kansas on this 5th day of March 2018.

Teresa J. James
U. S. Magistrate Judge

3