Jacobs v. Robeson County Public Library, et al

Filing 38

Memorandum in Opposition regarding 37 MOTION to Quash filed by Board of Directors for Robeson County Public Library, Robert F. Fisher, Gayle McLean, Robeson County Public Library, Horace Stacy, Tina Mellen Stepp Thomas. (Purcell, William)

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
NO: 7:12-CV-20-FL

SHERRYL LYNN JACOBS,

)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,

v.

)

ROBESON COUNTY PUBLIC LIBRARY,
BOARD OF DIRECTORY FOR ROBESON
COUNTY PUBLIC LIBRARY, ROBERT F.
FISHER, HORACE STACY, GAYLE MCLEAN,
and TINA MELLEN STEPP THOMAS
Defendants.

)
)
MEMORANDUM IN
)
)
OPPOSITION TO
) PLAINFIFF'S MOTION TO
)
QUASH/SUPPRESS
)
)

Defendants respond to Plaintiffs Motion to Quash/Suppress as follows:
Plaintiff's Motion Is Premature.

It is not clear if Plaintiffs Motion is a Discovery Motion or a Non-Discovery

Motion. We assume it is a non-discovery motion, since defendant's counsel was not
contacted in advance of the filing as required by Local Rule 7.1 (c) and the required
certification is not in the motion. Plaintiff cites no rule upon which she makes her
Motion and it appears more like a pre-trial motion in limine that would be more
appropriate at trial or at least once discovery has been completed so that the Court would
be able to consider whatever offensive or impermissible testimony may be proffered.
Discovery has just begun and no witnesses have been deposed. At this time,
Defendants have offered no testimony, but merely have completed the Rule 26 initial

1

disclosures identifying persons who may have knowledge regarding the matters in
dispute. Since Plaintiff has not yet made her initial disclosures under Rule 26, as
required by the Court's scheduling order, Defendants are not aware of what evidence, if
any, the Plaintiff may offer in this case and what evidence or witnesses they will need to
respond to her evidence. The Defendants have simply complied with their obligation
under Rule 26 by indentifying any and all persons who might have knowledge of this
matter. It would be premature to exclude testimony of any witness until such time as it is
known what such witness may testify to. Plaintiff has adequate remedies, other than a
premature motion to quash, to learn what, if anything, persons identified in Defendants'
Rule 26 Initial Disclosures may say by taking their deposition, or by submitting
interrogatories or requests for production of documents. Since no testimony has been
offered there is nothing at this time to quash.

Plaintiff Can't Have It Both Ways

Plaintiff seeks to exclude the testimony of Horace Stacey, Gail McLean, Larry
McGougan and Elizabeth Townsend by alleging they have no personal knowledge about
her, yet she has named all four as defendants in this case and is seeking substantial
damages from each of them. If they have so little personal knowledge about the matters
in dispute they cannot have done anything that merits making them defendants and they
should be dismissed from this case if she does not want to hear from them. I am unaware
of any legal precedent that would preclude a civil defendant from testifying in his own
defense.

2

Plaintifrs Unverified Motion Should Not Be The Basis For Determining The Scope
Or Relevance Of A Witness' Testimony

Plaintiffs Motion, just as all of the pleadings she has filed in this case, is
unverified and is not supported by sworn affidavits. It should not be considered as
evidence as to how much contact she has had with other parties or witnesses in the case
nor as to the scope, relevancy or knowledge of any testimony they may later give in this
case. Until they are deposed, sign affidavits or answer interrogatories there is at tllis time
no evidence of record of what these witnesses may say for this Court to consider
excluding. The Plaintiffs unverified motion does not even identify any "inflammatory
evidence these witnesses may offer. The Court cannot weigh the relevance or prejudice
of evidence that is not before it.

Witnesses Without Personal Knowledge of Plaintiff May Have Evidence
Relevant To This Case
Counsel for the Defendants is cognizant of the Federal Rules of Evidence and will
not tender witnesses to testify about matters about which they have no personal
knowledge. However, witnesses who have not personally met Plaintiff may have
knowledge of matters relevant to this case. For example a board member may have never
met the Plaintiffbut may possess knowledge of the libraries personnel policies and
procedures and how the board or director takes action that could be relevant to this case.
A maintenance person may not know Plaintiff but may have knowledge of the physical
aspects of Plaintiffs work space or furniture. Similarly an expert may have helpful

3

i

I

testimony based upon a review of discovery, depositions and medical records yet they
have never met the Plaintiff.

Conclusion

For the reasons set forth above the Defendants request that the Court deny
Plaintiffs Motion, or alternatively that the Court reserve ruling on the admissibility of
evidence until discovery is completed and until specific evidence is offered.

This the 11th of June, 2012

Is/ William R. Purcell, II
William R. Purcell, II
Law Office ofWilliam R. Purcell, II, PLLC
210 West Cronly Street
Post Office Box 1567
Laurinburg, North Carolina 28352
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
wrp@purcell-law .net
North Carolina State Bar No: 13080
Attorney for Defendants

4

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I herby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served upon Plaintiff by
depositing a copy thereof in the United States mail, first-class, postage prepaid, addressed
as follows:
Ms. Sherry! Lynn Jacobs
Post Office Box 175
Orrum, North Carolina 28369

This the 11 day of June, 2012

Is/ William R. Purcell, II
William R. Purcell, II
Law Office of William R. Purcell, II, PLLC
210 West Cronly Street
Post Office Box 1567
Laurinburg, North Carolina 28352
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
wrp@purcell-law .net
North Carolina State Bar No: 13080
Attorney for Defendants

5