McGuire v. St. Louis County Missouri et al

Filing 149

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. (See Full Order.) IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendants' Motion to Compel the Continuation of Plaintiff's Deposition and to Compel Plaintiff to Answer Questions 117 is GRANTED. Defendants may take an additional se ven hours of deposition of plaintiff; plaintiff is ordered to answer the questions asked (including, but not limited to those she failed to answer before), and is directed that she cannot refuse to answer questions unless she is objecting on the gro und that the answer is protected by a privilege. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants' Motion to Amend the Case Management Order 138 is granted only as follows, and all other provisions remain in effect: Any motions for summary judgment mus t be filed no later than January 28, 2019. Opposition briefs must be filed no later than thirty days after the motion or February 27, 2019, whichever is earlier. Any reply brief may be filed no later than twenty days following the response brief o r March 18, 2019, whichever is earlier. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants' Motion to Quash Notice of Deposition 124 is granted for the reasons stated in defendants' motion and objections. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs' motions are denied as follows: motions regarding Cheryl Campell's deposition 120 , 132 are denied as duplicative and previously ruled; motions to compel St. Louis County to provide a corporate designee and for sanctions 123 , 127 , 140 are denied and defendants' objections, including those to the vagueness of the notice, are sustained; motion filed on November 1, 2018 to compel responses to requests served on October 5, 2018 133 is denied as premature and for failure to meet and confer and attempt to resolve any disputes; motion to compel defendant to produce all positions plaintiff applied for back to 2002 134 is denied as the burden of producing the evidence is out of proportion to its likely benefit, especially giv en its lack of relevance to the issues in this case; motion asking the court to deny any relief sought by any defendant 139 "because Defendants have demonstrated strong disrespect" to the court is denied as contradicted by the record (in fact, it is plaintiff who has demonstrated disrespect for the judicial process); motion asking the Court to honor all established dates 141 is denied because it does not allege that any dates have not been complied with; to the extent that this mot ion is an opposition to defendants' motion to extend the deadline for filing summary judgment motions it is denied; motion asking this Court to review motions filed in a different state court case 143 is denied as the Court lacks jurisdiction to do any such thing, as plaintiff well knows; motion for reconsideration 145 of previous order is denied as the Court believes the previous orders were correctly decided. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff Dr. Patt McGuire is warned that her co ntinued failure to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, including but not limited to her continued refusal to follow the rules of discovery, may result in sanctions, including, if requested, dismissal with prejudice. Signed by District Judge Catherine D. Perry on 11/26/2018. (CBL)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
DR. PATT MCGUIRE,
Plaintiff,
vs.
ST. LOUIS COUNTY, MISSOURI,
et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 4:17 CV 2818 CDP

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
I have examined the various motions before me, and am concerned that
plaintiff Dr. Patt McGuire has not complied with her discovery obligations in this
case. I am also concerned that she is abusing the discovery process and the Court
process by making frivolous arguments and filing baseless motions. For example,
she filed a motion to compel before the deadline for responding to the discovery
request had even passed. She seeks sanctions for defendant’s failure to appear at a
Rule 30(b)(6) deposition when the defendants had served objections to the
deposition, filed a motion to quash, and notified her that they would not appear.
She continues to file motions asking me to change previous rulings, and she
continues to file multiple motions and other documents making the same
objections and arguments which I have already rejected, as well as making
duplicative demands for discovery that defendants have either already produced or
that are not relevant to any of the issues in this case.

Of most concern, plaintiff failed to answer numerous questions in her
deposition that should have been easy to answer. She refused to verify that she
wrote documents shown to her in the deposition, saying that she could not answer
because she did not have her original documents with her. She made very lengthy
and somewhat nonsensical answers to questions that could have been answered
with a simple yes or no. For example, she would not answer the question whether
she had ever used her work computer to prepare or research matters for this case
while on duty. When she was asked to explain allegations in her complaint, such
as what she was referring to by “black balling,” she refused to answer, but at the
same time refused to state whether she intended to introduce evidence of “black
balling” at trial.1 She refused to answer the question whether, during the time she
worked the night shift, she ever asked to work the day shift. This conduct is not
acceptable, and I caution plaintiff that if she continues in her refusal to comply
with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, she will face sanctions, which could
include dismissal of her lawsuit with prejudice.
Having fully considered all the pending motions, I rule as follows:

1

In my Order dated February 5, 2018 I dismissed plaintiff’s claims of age discrimination as
unexhausted and I dismissed any claims she raised about discrimination before August 16, 2016,
because her EEOC/MHCR charge was not filed until February 15, 2017. This ruling does not,
however, mean that nothing that happened before that date may be inquired into in discovery.
Some things before that date may in fact be relevant and discoverable, within the limits of Rule
26(b).

2

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendants’ Motion to Compel the
Continuation of Plaintiff’s Deposition and to Compel Plaintiff to Answer
Questions [117] is GRANTED. Defendants may take an additional seven hours of
deposition of plaintiff; plaintiff is ordered to answer the questions asked
(including, but not limited to those she failed to answer before), and is directed that
she cannot refuse to answer questions unless she is objecting on the ground that the
answer is protected by a privilege.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants’ Motion to Amend the Case
Management Order [138] is granted only as follows, and all other provisions
remain in effect:
Any motions for summary judgment must be filed no
later than January 28, 2019. Opposition briefs must be
filed no later than thirty days after the motion or
February 27, 2019, whichever is earlier. Any reply brief
may be filed no later than twenty days following the
response brief or March 18, 2019, whichever is earlier.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants’ Motion to Quash Notice of
Deposition [124] is granted for the reasons stated in defendants’ motion and
objections.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs’ motions are denied as
follows: motions regarding Cheryl Campell’s deposition [120, 132] are denied as
duplicative and previously ruled; motions to compel St. Louis County to provide a
corporate designee and for sanctions [123, 127, 140] are denied and defendants’
3

objections, including those to the vagueness of the notice, are sustained; motion
filed on November 1, 2018 to compel responses to requests served on October 5,
2018 [133] is denied as premature and for failure to meet and confer and attempt to
resolve any disputes; motion to compel defendant to produce all positions plaintiff
applied for back to 2002 [134] is denied as the burden of producing the evidence is
out of proportion to its likely benefit, especially given its lack of relevance to the
issues in this case; motion asking the court to deny any relief sought by any
defendant [139] “because Defendants have demonstrated strong disrespect” to the
court is denied as contradicted by the record (in fact, it is plaintiff who has
demonstrated disrespect for the judicial process); motion asking the Court to
honor all established dates [141] is denied because it does not allege that any dates
have not been complied with; to the extent that this motion is an opposition to
defendants’ motion to extend the deadline for filing summary judgment motions it
is denied; motion asking this Court to review motions filed in a different state court
case [143] is denied as the Court lacks jurisdiction to do any such thing, as plaintiff
well knows; motion for reconsideration [145] of previous order is denied as the
Court believes the previous orders were correctly decided.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff Dr. Patt McGuire is warned
that her continued failure to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,

4

including but not limited to her continued refusal to follow the rules of discovery,
may result in sanctions, including, if requested, dismissal with prejudice.

CATHERINE D. PERRY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 26th day of November, 2018.

5