Thomas v. Lighthouse of Oakland et al

Filing 151

ORDER denying 146 Motion for Temporary Stay; Requiring Plaintiff's Compliance With Court's Order Regarding Joint Pretrial Order; and Notice to Plaintiff of Possible Sanctions SEE ORDER FOR DEADLINES. Signed by District Judge Victoria A. Roberts. (CPin)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
RANDALL THOMAS,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 12-15494
Honorable Victoria A. Roberts

v.
LIGHTHOUSE OF OAKLAND
COUNTY, et al.,
Defendants.
____________________________/
ORDER: (1) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
TEMPORARY STAY (DOC. 146); (2) REQUIRING PLAINTIFF’S
COMPLIANCE WITH COURT’S ORDER REGARDING JOINT PRETRIAL
ORDER; AND (3) PUTTING PLAINTIFF ON NOTICE OF POSSIBLE SANCTIONS
This matter is set for a jury trial to begin December 5, 2016. On November 4,
2016, pro se Plaintiff Randall Thomas moved to stay this case until January 19, 2017,
due to his health. Because Thomas fails to show good cause for a continuance and the
Court is certain that, despite his health conditions, he will be able to adequately litigate
his case and protect his interests at trial, the motion for temporary stay is DENIED.
Local Rule 40.2 provides: “Counsel or any party without counsel shall be
prepared and present themselves as ready in all cases set for trial or for pretrial on the
date set unless, on timely application and good cause shown, the cases are continued.
Where application is made for the continuance of the trial of a case, such application
shall be made to the Court as soon as the need arises.” E.D. Mich. LR 40.2.
Thomas attaches two doctor’s notes to his motion: (1) a September 20, 2016
doctor’s note stating that Thomas is incapacitated and unable to perform work or school
from September 19 to November 19, 2016; and (2) a November 1, 2016 doctor’s note

stating he is incapacitated and unable to perform work or school from November 19,
2016 to January 29, 2017. The medical records supporting these notes demonstrate
Thomas has optic neuropathy and decreased vision of his right eye; knee, back, and
wrist pain; and prostate cancer. However, based on these records and other records he
submitted, Thomas’s conditions have been ongoing since at least August 2016; for
example, a May 11, 2015, medical note states that Thomas had optic neuropathy of
both eyes, with 50% vision loss in his right eye. In fact, he previously moved for, and
obtained, reasonable accommodations based on his conditions. The Court has agreed
to provide reasonable accommodations during trial.
Despite his health conditions, Thomas has actively prosecuted his case. Since
his counsel withdrew in June 2016, Thomas has filed a request for accommodations
(Doc. 123); objections to an order (Doc. 128); a grievance against each of his four prior
attorneys in this case (Doc. 128, PgID 1844-47); a motion to require Defendants’ prior
counsel to recuse himself (Doc. 133), followed by a motion for default judgment in which
he says the Court order granting defense counsel’s motion to withdraw prejudiced him
(Doc. 136); an addendum to his request for accommodations (Doc. 140); and a reply to
Defendants’ response to his motion for default judgment (Doc. 142).
Because Thomas does not show any material change regarding his pre-existing
conditions, and it is clear that he is capable of proceeding to trial without a risk of
negatively affecting his interests, he fails to show that good cause exists for a
continuance, as required by LR 40.2. Moreover, even if his conditions constituted good
cause, the fact that they have been ongoing since before August 2016 makes Thomas’s
motion for temporary stay untimely. See E.D. Mich. LR 40.2 (“Where application is

2

made for the continuance of the trial of a case, such application shall be made to the
Court as soon as the need arises.”).
Because good cause for a continuance does not exist and Thomas’s request was
untimely, the Court DENIES his motion for temporary stay (Doc. 146). This case will
proceed to a jury trial on December 5, 2016.
On a related note, Thomas failed to comply with this Court’s October 6 order
requiring the parties to submit a joint pretrial order by November 14, 2016. Defense
counsel submitted a declaration stating that he attempted to work with Thomas to
complete the joint order, but Thomas would not comply; and that on November 11,
2016, he hand-delivered a final pretrial order to Thomas with all Defendants’ portions
completed, but Thomas still did not complete his portions of the order.
Thomas must complete his portions of the joint pretrial order, in accordance with
the Court’s November 6 order, and deliver a copy to Defendants’ counsel by 12:00 p.m.
on November 22, 2016. Defendants must then finalize the joint pretrial order and
submit it to the Court by 12:00 p.m. on November 28, 2016.
The Court puts Thomas on notice that failure to comply with this order may
result in sanctions, up to and including dismissal of his case. See E.D. Mich. LR
16.2(c) (“For failure to cooperate in preparing or submitting the joint final pretrial order or
failure to comply strictly with the terms of the joint final pretrial order, the Court may
dismiss claims, enter default judgment, refuse to permit witnesses to testify or to admit
exhibits, assess costs and expenses, including attorney fees, or impose other
appropriate sanctions.”). See also Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(f)(1)(C) (the court may impose
sanctions, “including those authorized by Rule 37(b)(2)(A)(ii)-(vii), if a party . . . fails to

3

obey a scheduling or other pretrial order”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 (the available sanctions
under Rule 37(a)(2)(A) include “(ii) prohibiting the disobedient party from supporting or
opposing designated claims or defenses, or from introducing designated matters in
evidence” and “(v) dismissing the action or proceeding in whole or in part”).
If this matter gets to trial, Thomas may only present evidence that he has
identified and included in the joint pretrial order; the Court will preclude Thomas
from calling witnesses or introducing exhibits not specifically identified in the
joint pretrial order. See E.D. Mich. LR 16.2(b)(8) (“Only listed witnesses will be
permitted to testify at trial, except for rebuttal witnesses whose testimony could not be
reasonably anticipated before trial, or except for good cause shown.”); E.D. Mich. LR
16.2(b)(9) (“Only listed exhibits will be considered for admission at trial, except for
rebuttal exhibits which could not be reasonably anticipated before trial, or except for
good cause shown.”).
Additionally, Thomas must set forth any objections to Defendants’ exhibits
in the joint pretrial order. E.D. Mich. LR 16.2(b)(8) (“Objections to listed exhibits must
be stated in the joint pretrial order.”).
IT IS ORDERED.
S/Victoria A. Roberts
United States District Judge
Dated: 11/15/2016

4