Bracey v. Delta Technical College, LLC et al

Filing 77

ORDER denying 54 Motion to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge S. Allan Alexander on 12/17/15. (bnd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
OXFORD DIVISION
SHIQUITA BRACEY
v.

PLAINTIFF

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:14-CV-00238-MPM-SAA

DELTA TECHNICAL COLLEGE, LLC, et al.,

DEFENDANTS

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL
Defendant Demetria Shaw asks the court to compel plaintiff Shiquita Bracey to
supplement Bracey’s responses to four Requests for Admissions that Shaw asserts Bracey should
have admitted based upon documents provided to Bracey. Docket 54. Additionally, Shaw seeks
attorneys’ fees incurred in filing the Motion to Compel. Id.
The Requests for Admissions concern Bracey’s physical abilities while she was enrolled
at Delta Technical College. Shaw believes Bracey’s responses conflict with the Health
Affidavit/Screening which Bracey completed on March 11, 2014. Docket 56, Exhibit 2.
Specifically, Shaw asks that Bracey be compelled to admit that she did not have problems
standing, bending and stooping while she was enrolled at Delta Technical College and that, at
the time she enrolled at Delta Technical College, LLC, she was physically capable of completing
the program. Docket 56, pp. 2-3. According to Shaw, plaintiff’s denial of these admissions
contradicts her Health Affidavit/Screening. Bracey says that although she did in fact have
problems standing, bending and stooping at the time, she nevertheless was physically capable of
completing the essential elements of the program. Docket 63, p. 3-4. Because the Health
Affidavit/Screening required plaintiff to affirm that she did not “have any physical, mental,
dental or other impairment(s) that would interfere with [her] ability to participate in classroom
lectures, lab sessions, hands-on exercises, . . .” [Docket 56, Exhibit 2], says plaintiff, the Health

Affidavit/Screening required her to identify only health problems that would interfere with her
ability to participate in the program. Docket 63, p. 5. In addition, the Requests for Admissions
addressed any issues with standing, bending, or stooping, and the Health Affidavit/Screening
only addresses issues that would interfere with her ability to participate in the program. Id. Thus,
Bracey contends her denials are proper because she does in fact have problems with these
postural activities.
A review of plaintiff’s responses to the Requests for Admissions, as well as her
Responses to the Motion to Compel (Docket ## 62, 63), convinces the court that plaintiff
answered the Requests for Admissions to the best of her knowledge, but she clearly has a
different interpretation of the intent of the Health Affidavit/Screening questions from that of
defendants. Just as in the Motion to Compel filed by Caroline Mason, the court cannot order
plaintiff to alter responses to Request for Admissions if the responses would then be untruthful.
There is no doubt that plaintiff claims to suffer from various physical impairments and has even
sought social security benefits as a result of the alleged impairments. Defendant may question
plaintiff at trial concerning the any alleged discrepancies between her Health Affidavit/Screening
and her Responses to the Requests for Admissions at trial. However, the court finds that
Bracey’s responses are sufficient under the circumstances, and there is an arguable basis that
they do not contradict the Health Affidavit/Screening. Defendant’s Motion to Compel, as well
as her request for an award of attorney’s fees are DENIED.
This, the 17th day of December, 2015.

/s/ S. Allan Alexander
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2