McSean v. Lemons et al
Filing
81
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER... IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff Kelly McSean's Motion for Extension of Time [ 76 ] is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the deadline by which to complete all discovery in this case is extended to March 31, 2025. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the deadline by which to file any motion for summary judgment is extended to April 28, 2025. Opposition briefs must be filed no later than May 28, 2025, or within thirty (30) days after the motion is filed, whichever is sooner; and any reply brief may be filed no later than June 11, 2025, or within fourteen (14) days after the opposition is filed, whichever is sooner. [SEE ORDER FOR COMPLETE DETAILS.] ( Discovery Completion due by 3/31/2025., Dispositive Motions due by 4/28/2025.). Signed by Sr. District Judge Catherine D. Perry on 1/28/2025. (NEP)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
KELLY MCSEAN,
Plaintiff,
v.
DERICK BAINBRIDGE,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 4:23 CV 1086 CDP
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This case is one of several pending lawsuits filed by self-represented litigant
Kelly McSean in which she challenges various conditions of confinement under 42
U.S.C. § 1983. In this particular action, McSean asserts that defendant Derick
Bainbridge, an officer of the St. Francois Sheriff’s Office, retaliated against her for
exercising her First Amendment right to pursue the grievance process while she
was detained at the St. Francois County Jail.1 Discovery recently closed in this
case on January 17, 2025, and dispositive motions are due to be filed on February
26. McSean has now filed several motions seeking to extend those deadlines, to
compel Bainbridge to respond to discovery requests, and to permit her to take
The other named defendant, Jessica Lemons, was dismissed from this action for McSean’s
failure to serve process on her. As Bainbridge is the only remaining defendant to the case, I will
direct the Clerk of Court to update the caption of the docket sheet to “Kelly McSean v. Derick
Bainbridge.”
1
depositions. She also seeks the appointment of counsel. This Order rules all of
McSean’s pending motions.
1. Motion for Extension of Time (ECF 76)
McSean asks that the deadlines to complete discovery and by which to file
motions for summary judgment be extended by 30 to 60 days. I will grant this
motion and extend the deadlines by 60 days.
2. Motion to Compel (ECF 80)
McSean asks that I compel Bainbridge to produce documents as requested in
her Request for Production of Documents, which is attached to her motion. There
is no indication, however, that McSean ever served defense counsel with her
Request for Production. As it appears that service of the Request first occurred
with the electronic filing of this motion on January 24, defendant has 30 days from
that date within which to respond. I will therefore deny McSean’s motion to
compel, but without prejudice to refiling after defendant responds to her Request
(if McSean considers the response insufficient), and after she has conferred with
defense counsel on the Request as required by Local Rule 3.04(A).
3. Motion for Extension of all CMO Deadlines (ECF 77)
In this motion, McSean seeks an extension of “all dates in [the] case
management order” because of the management and status of her inmate account at
St. Francois County Jail. To the extent McSean requests an extension of the
-2-
deadlines to complete discovery and file motions for summary judgment, I will
deny the motion as moot as I have granted those extensions on McSean’s other
motion for extension of time (ECF 76). I will deny McSean’s motion to the extent
she seeks an extension of the deadlines by which to make Rule 26(a)(1) disclosures
and to move to join parties or amend pleadings, as those dates have long passed
(July 18 and August 19, 2024, respectively), and no exceptional circumstance
appears of record to extend those deadlines.
4. Motion for Requested Depositions (ECF 79)
McSean asks that I permit her to take the oral depositions of four
individuals, including defendant Bainbridge, and that I appoint a person authorized
to administer oaths as well as a stenographer to create a record of the depositions.
“This Court prefers that pro se prisoner Plaintiffs utilize interrogatories and
discovery requests, rather than depositions, in obtaining discovery from other
parties.” Price v. Larkins, No. 4:10-cv-1738 AGF, 2011 WL 2416383, at *1 (E.D.
Mo. June 13, 2013), quoted approvingly in Rodgers v. Thompson, No. 1:23-cv00077-SNLJ, 2024 WL 2321100, at *1 (E.D. Mo. May 22, 2024). As there is no
indication that McSean has attempted to obtain discovery by way of written
interrogatories or requests for production (other than her Request for Production
attached to her motion to compel), I will deny her motion to take depositions.
Moreover, as explained by the Court in Rodgers, “[t]he Federal Rules of Civil
-3-
Procedure require that a party seeking to conduct a deposition bear the costs of
recording such deposition. . . . [A] ‘plaintiff is required to pay for the costs of a
court reporter or witness fees [in the context of a deposition], even though he is
proceeding in forma pauperis.’” Rodgers, 2024 WL 2321100, at *1 (citing Fed.
R. Civ. P. 30(b)(3)) (quoting Wagner v. Gober, No. 4:15-cv-1789-CAS, 2017 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 1353, at *3 (E.D. Mo. Jan. 5, 2017)).
5. Motion for Appointment of Counsel (ECF 78)
As stated in my September 2024 Order denying McSean’s third motion for
counsel (see ECF 65), the factual and legal issues in this case are not complex as
the case involves one claim that defendant Bainbridge retaliated against McSean
by appearing to threaten her for exercising her right to pursue the grievance
process at St. Francois County Jail. From my review of this case and the several
other self-initiated lawsuits McSean is pursuing in this court, McSean has shown
that she is knowledgeable of and able to engage in the processes necessary to
prosecute her claims. Given the single, straightforward claim raised in this case
and McSean’s ability to adequately present and prosecute the claim, the
appointment of counsel is not warranted at this time.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff Kelly McSean’s Motion for
Extension of Time [76] is GRANTED.
-4-
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the deadline by which to complete all
discovery in this case is extended to March 31, 2025.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the deadline by which to file any motion
for summary judgment is extended to April 28, 2025. Opposition briefs must be
filed no later than May 28, 2025, or within thirty (30) days after the motion is
filed, whichever is sooner; and any reply brief may be filed no later than June 11,
2025, or within fourteen (14) days after the opposition is filed, whichever is
sooner.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of all
CMO Deadlines [77] is DENIED as moot to the extent plaintiff seeks an extension
of the deadlines to complete discovery and to file motions for summary judgment.
The motion is DENIED to the extent plaintiff seeks to extend any other deadline
set out in the Case Management Order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s Motion to Compel [80] is
DENIED without prejudice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s Motion for Requested
Depositions [79] is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of
Counsel [78] is DENIED without prejudice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall update the
-5-
caption of this case on the docket sheet to read as follows: “Kelly McSean,
Plaintiff v. Derick Bainbridge, Defendant.” The parties shall use this updated
caption on all future filings.
CATHERINE D. PERRY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 28th day of January, 2025.
-6-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?