Martin v. US Postal Service et al

Filing 99

ORDER denying 81 plaintiff's motion to reopen discovery. Clerk to send copy of order to plaintiff by regular and certified mail. Signed on 2/27/12 by Chief District Judge Fernando J. Gaitan, Jr. (Enss, Rhonda) Modified on 2/27/2012 to reflect that copies were mailed to the plaintiff at her listed address by regular and certified mail #7006 2760 0000 6384 4032 this date (Rowland, Bonnie).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
WESTERN DIVISION
STEPHANIE MARTIN,
Plaintiff,
v.
PATRICK R. DONAHOE,
Postmaster General,et al.
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
) No. 10-00917-CV-W-FJG
)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER
Currently pending before the Court is Plaintiff Stephanie Martin’s Motion to Reopen
Discovery (Doc. No. 81).
On October 13, 2010, Plaintiff Stephanie Martin filed a Complaint initiating the abovestyled action alleging employment discrimination against Defendants (Doc. No. 5). On June
13, 2011, the Court issued a Scheduling and Trial Order which called for the close of
discovery on October 28, 2011 (Doc. No. 45).1 On September 14, 2011, the Court issued
an Order reminding the parties of the discovery deadline (Doc. No. 50). Plaintiff did not
initiate any form of discovery prior to October 28, 2011 (Doc. No. 85 & 90). On November
16, 2011, Plaintiff filed a request for “employment, leave, and any discipline records” for
individuals related to her case “in order to prove [her] case for discrimination and [disparate]
treatment.” On December 19, 2011, the Court denied Plaintiff’s request (Doc. No. 70). The
Court stated that the proper forum in which to raise this issue is through a motion to reopen
the discovery period (Doc. No. 70). The Court further stated that submission of such a

1

The Court issued a revised Scheduling and Trial Order on January 25, 2012 (Doc. 79). This
Scheduling and Trial Order did not change the close of discovery date original set in the first Scheduling
and Trial Order (Doc. No. 45 & 79).

motion does not automatically grant the reopening of discovery, as the decision is within the
Court’s discretion (Doc. No. 70). Plaintiff filed the present Motion to Reopen Discovery
Period on January 13, 2012 (Doc. 81) stating that she is “respectfully requesting that the
discovery phase be reopened for a short period of time so that [she] may collect other
documents for [her] case.” (Doc. No. 81). Defendants Donahoe and Mailhandler Union Local
297 filed Suggestions in Opposition to Plaintiff’s request (Doc. No. 85 & 90).
Local Rule 16.3 states the following:
A deadline established by a scheduling order will be extended only upon a
good cause finding by the Court. In the absence of disabling circumstances,
the deadline for completion of all discovery will not be extended unless there
has been active discovery. Delayed discovery will not justify an extension of
discovery deadlines. A motion to extend any deadline in a scheduling order
shall demonstrate a specific need for the requested extension, and should be
accompanied by a detailed proposed amendment to the previously entered
scheduling order. The date for completion of discovery will be extended only
if the remaining discovery is specifically described and scheduled...
(emphasis added). In this case, Plaintiff Stephanie Martin did not engage in active discovery
during the discovery period. Furthermore, Plaintiff has not provided the Court with sufficient
evidence demonstrating good cause warranting an extension or reopening of the discovery
period. Plaintiff fails to meet the standard set by the aforementioned Rule. As such, Plaintiff
Stephanie Martin’s Motion to Reopen Discovery (Doc. No. 81) is hereby DENIED.
The Clerk of the Court is directed to mail a copy of this order via regular and certified
mail to the following: Stephanie A. Martin 14208 W. 83rd Street Lenexa, KS 66215
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date :February 27, 2012
Kansas City, Missouri

S/ FERNANDO J. GAITAN, JR.
Fernando J. Gaitan, Jr.
Chief United States District Judge

2