Lopez v. Dlorah, Inc.

Filing 66

ORDERED granting 54 Plaintiff's MOTION for extension of time of Discovery Deadline filed by Rosita Lopez. All pretrial discovery will be completed, and all discovery disputes presented to the Court, on or before June 11, 2012> ; Pretrial conference will take place on Friday, November 2, 2012 at 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom 8D, Kansas City (ODS) along with the pretrial conference in Case No. 11-1102. Signed on 4/4/2012 by District Judge Ortrie D. Smith. (Baldwin, Joella)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
ST. JOSEPH DIVISION
ROSITA LOPEZ,
Plaintiff,
vs.
DLORAH, INC. d/b/a NATIONAL
AMERICAN UNIVERSITY,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 11-1101-CV-SJ-ODS

ORDER (1) ADDRESSING DISCOVERY DISPUTES AND (2) GRANTING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

The Court participated in a telephone conference with the parties regarding
various discovery disputes and Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time. At the Court’s
direction, Plaintiff submitted copies of the Requests for Admission she served on
Defendant, and the Court has reviewed them. The Court now orders as follows:
1.

Practically all of Plaintiff’s Requests for Admissions ask Defendant to confirm or

deny abstract legal propositions and for that reason they are improper. It makes no
difference that Plaintiffs couch their requests in terms of whether certain abstrct conduct
is “proper.” The Court sustains Defendant’s objections with respect to requests 4-38,
43-45, and 47-48.
The Court does not agree with Defendant that requests 1 and 2 ask for legal
conclusions. The Court is also not persuaded that an answer need not be given
because certain written documents speak for themselves. These two questions ask
Defendant to confirm or deny that it engaged in specific conduct. Defendant’s
objections are overruled.
2.

Defendant’s objections to Request for Production No. 52 are overruled. In

making this ruling, the Court is not holding that the information sought is admissible at
trial; however, the Court believes the information sought is discoverable.
3.

Plaintiff’s request to extend the temporal scope of discovery is denied.

4.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time (Doc. # 54) is granted. All pretrial

discovery will be completed, and all discovery disputes presented to the Court, on or
before June 11, 2012. All dispositive and Daubert-based motions shall be filed on or
before July 11, 2012. The pretrial conference will take place at 1:30 p.m. on November
2, 2012, along with the pretrial conference in Case No. 11-1102.
5.

The Court takes this opportunity to remind the parties of the Tenets of

Professional Courtesy supplied to them as part of the Court’s November 3, 2011, order.
This step seems necessary in light of Defendant’s position regarding accepting
subpoenas for witnesses; while the witnesses may be former employees, Defendant’s
counsel indicated he represented them. Accordingly, the Court would expect that
courtesy be extended and that counsel agree to accept service of subpoenas on behalf
of those individuals. Counsel is correct in stating that he did nothing more than insist
that Plaintiff’s comply with the rules – but courtesy demands more. The Court expects
courtesy to be shown.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATE: April 4, 2012

/s/ Ortrie D. Smith
ORTRIE D. SMITH, SENIOR JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT