Courtney-Pope v. Board of Education of Carroll County

Filing 57

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying Plaintiff's 26 Motion for Sanctions; denying Defendant's 31 Motion to Strike. Signed by Magistrate Judge Beth P. Gesner on 9/28/2018. (dass, Deputy Clerk) (c/m 9/28/18-das)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
CHAMBERS OF
BETH P. GESNER
CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
[e-mail]

101 WEST LOMBARD STREET
BALTIMORE, MARYLAND 21201
[phone]
[phone] FAX

September 28, 2018
Lydia Courtney-Pope
Pro Se
6712 Ridge Rd.
Marriottsville, MD 21104

Subject:

Lisa Y. Settles, Esq.
Edmund J. O’Meally, Esq.
Andrew G. Scott, Esq.
Pessin Katz Law, P.A.
901 Dulaney Valley Rd., Ste. 500
Towson, MD 21204

Courtney-Pope v. Board of Education of Carroll County
Civil No.: ELH-16-4055

Dear Counsel:
Currently pending are Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions for Harassment of
Witness/Tampering with Witnesses (“Motion for Sanctions”) (ECF No. 26) and related pleadings
(ECF Nos. 27, 28), as well as Defendant’s Motion to Strike Supplemental Materials Submitted
with Plaintiff’s Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion for Sanctions (“Motion to Strike”)
(ECF No. 31) and related pleadings (ECF Nos. 32, 33). For the reasons stated below, both
motions are denied.
I.

Defendant’s Motion to Strike Supplemental Materials

On May 7, 2018, defendant filed the Motion to Strike and requested an order striking the
addendum and exhibits (ECF Nos. 29, 29-2) submitted by plaintiff with her reply memorandum
in support of the Motion for Sanctions. (ECF No. 31 at 1). Defendant argues that striking the
materials is warranted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f), which allows a court to strike
from a pleading “any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.” (ECF No. 31 at
2). Defendant argues that these materials are inappropriate and unrelated to the issue central to
the motion, whether defendant should be sanctioned. (ECF No. 31 at 3). In response, plaintiff
argues that the documents are relevant, as they provide support for the need for sanctions by
illustrating a history of retaliation and harassment in Carroll County. (ECF No. 32 at 4).
Defendant replies that the addendum includes only speculative statements of fear of retaliation,
but no evidence that harassment or retaliation actually occurred. (ECF No. 33 at 3). Although
the addendum does not provide any direct evidence in support of plaintiff’s motion for sanctions,
defendant has not met its burden of showing that the addendum contains “redundant, immaterial,
impertinent, or scandalous” material. As noted by defendant, “Rule 12(f) motions are generally
viewed with disfavor ‘because striking a portion of a pleading is a drastic remedy . . . .’” Waste
Mgmt. Holdings, Inc. v. Gilmore, 252 F.3d 316, 347 (4th Cir. 2001) (quoting 5A CHARLES ALAN
WRIGHT & ARTHUR R. MILLER, FEDERAL PRACTICE & PROCEDURE § 1380, 647 (2d ed. 1990)).
Accordingly, defendant’s motion is denied, and the supplemental materials will be considered
with the other pleadings.

Courtney-Pope v. Board of Education of Carroll County
Civil No.: ELH-16-4055
September 28, 2018
Page 2
II.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions

On April 12, 2018, plaintiff filed the Motion for Sanctions alleging that defendant was
engaging in retaliatory action against teacher Leroy Sheurholz after he provided an affidavit on
plaintiff’s behalf. (ECF No. 26 at 1). Plaintiff alleges that after Mr. Sheurholz provided this
affidavit, defendant attempted to terminate Mr. Sheurholz and treated him differently than other
employees. (ECF No. 26 at 1–6). Plaintiff also alleges that another affidavit witness, Elizabeth
Payne, took a teaching position in a different district in fear of retaliation, and that two additional
witnesses will no longer return her phone calls. (ECF No. 26 at 6). Defendant categorically
denies these allegations and argues that there is no causal link between Mr. Sheurholz’s
participation in the case and defendant’s actions. (ECF No. 27 at 1, 6).
Plaintiff seeks sanctions against the defendant pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1512, tampering
with a witness victim or an informant. (ECF No. 26 at 7). As noted by defendant, 18 U.S.C.
§ 1512 is a criminal statute and inapplicable in this civil case. (ECF No. 27 at 4). Plaintiff also
seeks reinstatement of Mr. Sheurholz pursuant to Md. Code. Ann. § 10-222(b)(3)(iii) and the
Federal Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989, 5 U.S.C. § 1213, et seq., (ECF No. 27 at 7–8), but
does not allege that he has been terminated or forced to resign. Finally, plaintiff seeks sanctions
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b)(2)(A) for defendant’s alleged failure to obey a
discovery order, 28 U.S.C. § 1927 for defense counsel’s alleged liability for excessive costs, and
the inherent power of the court to levy sanctions. (ECF No. 26 at 8–10).
On April 20, 2018, plaintiff filed an addendum and exhibits in support of her motion for
sanctions along with her reply to defendant’s opposition. (ECF Nos. 29, 29-2). Plaintiff
provides witness affidavits that detail a fear of retaliation from defendant from participating in
the case, but does not provide any evidence of actual retaliation by defendant. With regard to
Mr. Sheurholz, the only support that plaintiff offers for of her claim of retaliation is her
allegation that there was a meeting on April 16, 2018, between Principal Brilhart and Mr.
Sheurholz, who was represented by union representative Ms. Yaegley, that turned hostile. (ECF
No. 29 at 1–2). She claimed that when Ms. Yaegley requested that Principal Brilhart discontinue
his hostile communication style, he pushed paperwork from this case across the desk towards her
and stated “I guess you know all about this court case then?” (ECF No. 29 at 2). This incident
alone is insufficient to support plaintiff’s claims and request for sanctions. Accordingly,
plaintiff’s motion for sanctions is denied.
Notwithstanding the informal nature of this letter, it is an Order of the court and will be
docketed accordingly.
Very truly yours,
/s/
Beth P. Gesner
Chief United States Magistrate Judge