Johnson v. The Sunshine House, Inc.

Filing 47

ORDER denying 42 Motion to Quash; Ordered that the parties shall file proposed revisions to 10 Pretrial Order, jointly if possible, on or before November 20, 2012. Signed by Magistrate Judge David Keesler on 11/6/2012. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(eef)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:11-CV-511-MOC-DCK
RHAE JOHNSON,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
THE SUNSHINE HOUSE, INC.,
)
)
Defendant.
)
____________________________________)

ORDER

THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE COURT regarding Plaintiff’s “Motion To Quash”
(Document No. 42) and scheduling. This matter has been referred to the undersigned Magistrate
Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), and immediate review is appropriate.
Plaintiff’s “Motion To Quash” (Document No. 42) seeks to quash her deposition, which was
apparently proposed by Defendant pursuant to the Court’s previous “Order” (Document No. 40).
Plaintiff suggests that her deposition, and other scheduling requirements, should be quashed pending
her objections to previous Orders by the Court. Subsequent to the filing of the instant motion, the
Honorable Max O. Cogburn, Jr. entered an “Order” (Document No. 46) overruling Plaintiff’s
various objections and affirming the undersigned’s “Memorandum And Recommendation”
(Document No. 39) and “Order” (Document No. 40) for revised scheduling.
In addition, Judge Cogburn’s “Order” (Document No. 46) specifically provided: “Plaintiff
is now clearly and explicitly warned that the consequences of further failures to obey court orders,
failure to attend her deposition, or failure to provide properly requested discovery, could result in
the imposition of sanctions, including dismissal of her case with prejudice.” (Document No. 46,
p.4).

As such, the Court will yet again require the parties to file proposed revisions to the “Pretrial
Order...” (Document No. 10) setting forth reasonable deadlines to get this matter ready for resolution
by dispositive motion(s) or trial. The parties shall file a joint proposal, if possible. If the parties are
unable to file a joint proposal, each party shall file its own. The proposed revisions to the “Pretrial
Order...” must include a specific date for Plaintiff’s deposition.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Plaintiff’s “Motion To Quash” (Document No. 42)
is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall file proposed revisions to the “Pretrial
Order... (Document No. 10), jointly if possible, on or before November 20, 2012, as more fully
described herein.
SO ORDERED.
Signed: November 6, 2012

2