Felton v. Gates County Board of Education

Filing 39

ORDER denying 38 Emergency Motion for Relief from Order or in the Alternative Clarification of Order Compelling Plaintiff to Sit for a Deposition and to Produce Tax Records. Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert T. Numbers, II on 6/9/2016. Order mailed to plaintiff via US Mail at 105 Princess Anne Circle, Elizabeth City, NC 27909. (Marsh, K)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
NORTHERN DIVISION
No. 2:15-CV-00020-BR
Mary E. Lyons-Felton,
Plaintiff,
v.

Order on Emergency Motion for Relief

Gates County Board of Education,
Defendant.
Plaintiff Mary E. Lyons Felton seeks emergency relief from the court’s May 26, 2016
Order requiring her to sit for a deposition and produce tax records on the grounds that Defendant
Gates County Board of Education’s Motion to Compel lacked the certification required by Rule
37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. D.E. 38. The version of this rule in effect at the time
Felton filed her complaint provided that “[t]he movant must include a certification that the
movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with the person or party failing to
make disclosure or discovery in an effort to obtain it without court action.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
37(a)(1) (2013).

The Board’s Motion contains the required certification.

D.E. 29 ¶ 8.

Additionally, the record reflects that the Board’s counsel made numerous attempts to resolve the
conflict over Felton’s deposition and her tax records before seeking redress from the court. D.E.
27 at 5, 27-2, 27-3, 27-4, 27-5. The court previously addressed this very issue in its May 26,
2016 Order. D.E. 37 at 1 n.1.
Felton also seeks clarification regarding various aspects of the court’s earlier order. First,
Felton seeks clarification regarding “how the Plaintiff was properly noticed regarding the

deposition scheduled on April 8, 2016.” D.E. 38 at 3. This was addressed in the court’s April
19, 2016 Order denying her Motion to Quash. D.E. 31 at 3–5.
Next, Felton seeks clarification about why the Board’s Motion was granted despite
lacking the certification required by Rule 37. D.E. 38 at 3. This incorrect assertion has been
dealt with above.
Finally, Felton asks how the court could grant the Board’s Motion to Compel when it was
filed after the discovery period had ended. Id. As an initial matter, the Federal Rules do not
place a time limit on when motions to compel may be brought.

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37.

Furthermore, as the conduct that gave rise to the Motion occurred on the final day of the
discovery period, the Board had no practical choice other than to file its motion after the close of
the discovery period. The Board acted reasonably in filing its motion to compel one week after
Felton failed to appear at her deposition and, therefore, its motion was timely and appropriate.
Felton also asks the court to provide “assistance in understanding the Federal Rules
applied in the Order signed on May 26, 2016. D.E. 38. The court cannot assist any party, even
one proceeding pro se, in the management or conduct of its litigation.
Therefore, it is ordered that Felton’s Emergency Motion for Relief from Order is denied.
Felton is cautioned that failure to comply with the court’s May 26, 2016 Order may result in the
imposition of sanctions up to and including the dismissal of her complaint.
Dated: June 9, 2016
ROBERT T. NUMBERS, II
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2