Clayton v. Brennan et al

Filing 119

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's "Motion for Leave to File Supplement [Plaintiff's] Petition to Alter or Amend the Judgement and Reinstatement of Cause" (Doc. 114 ) is GRANTED, but Plaintiff's &q uot;Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment and Reinstatement of Cause" (Doc. 113 ) is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's "Motion for Clarification" is GRANTED in part. IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that Plaintiff shall submit the discovery requests permitted by this Order within fifteen days from the date of this Order.( Response to Court due by 9/8/2020.). Signed by District Judge John A. Ross on 8/24/2020. (SMM)

Case: 4:18-cv-01039-JAR Doc. #: 119 Filed: 08/24/20 Page: 1 of 4 PageID #: 3189

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION

ROSALIND A. CLAYTON,
Plaintiff,
vs.
MEGAN J. BRENNAN,
Postmaster General
United States Postal Service, et al.,
Defendants.

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

Case No. 4:18-cv-01039-JAR

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on three motions and one notice filed by Plaintiff Rosalind
A. Clayton: “Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment and Reinstatement of Cause” (Doc. 113);
“Motion for Leave to File Supplement [Plaintiff’s] Petition to Alter or Amend the Judgement and
Reinstatement of Cause” (Doc. 114); “Motion for Clarification” (Doc. 115); and “Notice to the
Court of [Plaintiff’s] Discovery Needs.” (Doc. 116).

Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment and Reinstatement of Cause
Plaintiff indicates that she inadvertently submitted the incorrect version of her “Motion to
Alter or Amend Judgment and Reinstatement of Cause” (Doc. 113) and requests that the Court
instead consider (Doc. 114). The Court will allow this change and will consider (Doc. 114) to be
the operative filing.

Case: 4:18-cv-01039-JAR Doc. #: 119 Filed: 08/24/20 Page: 2 of 4 PageID #: 3190

In the motion, Plaintiff challenges the Court’s order granting Defendants partial dismissal
of various claims. (Doc. 97). Given Plaintiff is simply re-arguing the issues addressed in the
Court’s Order, the motion is considered and denied.

Motion for Clarification
Plaintiff requests that the Court clarify which claims she may continue to raise in the
current case. The Court’s August 5, 2020 Memorandum and Order (Doc. 97) dismissed potential
claims due to an applicable statute of limitations and Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust available
administrative remedies. For each Defendant, Plaintiff may only raise the following claims:
o APWU: Allegations that APWU failed to adequately represent Plaintiff after
December 25, 2017.
o USPS: Allegations included in the March 8, 2017 EEOC Final Agency Decision.
(Doc 8-1). Such allegations are limited to events occurring between September 22,
2016 and March 10, 2017.
In her Motion for Clarification, Plaintiff alleges multiple instances of “wage theft” that
supposedly occurred in 2018. Plaintiff may not bring any of these wage theft claims in the current
case, as she has not exhausted her administrative remedies as to these claims. The Court reminds
Plaintiff that she may bring these claims in a separate case, provided she complies with all
necessary legal requirements at that time.

Notice to the Court of Plaintiff’s Discovery Needs
Plaintiff has requested discovery in the form of requests for admission, interrogatories,
requests for production of documents, and depositions. (Doc. 116). Both Defendants have

Case: 4:18-cv-01039-JAR Doc. #: 119 Filed: 08/24/20 Page: 3 of 4 PageID #: 3191

expressed opposition to Plaintiff’s request, noting the limited factual scope of the case and the
potential for abuse of the discovery process. (Doc. 117-18). Defendant Brennan alternatively
requests that the Court constrain the scope of Plaintiff’s discovery.
The Court understands the Defendants’ position but believes that Plaintiff has shown cause
for a limited opportunity for discovery before the Court rules on Defendants’ dispositive motions.
Plaintiff shall be limited to the following forms of discovery, and shall submit her requests to
Defendants within fifteen days of this Order.
o Requests for Admission: 5 per Defendant
o Interrogatories: 5 per Defendant
Plaintiff is reminded that the scope of her discovery requests shall be limited to claims
against APWU occurring after December 25, 2017 and any claims alleged in the March 8,
2017 EEOC decision, all of which occurred between September 22, 2016 and March 10, 2017.
For now, the Court will deny without prejudice Plaintiff’s request for production of
documents and depositions. Provided, after completion of this initial discovery, Plaintiff may make
specific requests to the Court regarding particular types of documents sought or individuals she
seeks to depose. The Court will consider such requests at that time.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s “Motion for Leave to File Supplement
[Plaintiff’s] Petition to Alter or Amend the Judgement and Reinstatement of Cause” (Doc. 114) is
GRANTED, but Plaintiff’s “Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment and Reinstatement of Cause”
(Doc. 113) is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s “Motion for Clarification” is GRANTED
in part.

Case: 4:18-cv-01039-JAR Doc. #: 119 Filed: 08/24/20 Page: 4 of 4 PageID #: 3192

IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that Plaintiff shall submit the discovery requests permitted
by this Order within fifteen days from the date of this Order.

Dated this 24th day of August, 2020.

________________________________
JOHN A. ROSS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE