Shareef v. Donahoe et al

Filing 76

ORDER granting 69 Motion for Defendant to Submit Full Transcripts of Depositions; granting 75 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply re 62 MOTION to Dismiss or In The Alternative, For MOTION for Summary Judgment (Responses due by 8/23/2013). Signed by Magistrate Judge David Keesler on 7/29/2013. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.) (tmg)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:11-CV-615-DCK
KIMBERLY F. SHAREEF,
Plaintiff,
v.
PATRICK R. DONAHOE,
Postmaster General, U.S. Postal Service,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER

THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE COURT on “Plaintiff’s Motion For Defendant To
Submit All Transcripts Of Depositions/Plaintiff’s Motion For Extension Of Time To Respond To
Defendant’s Motion To Dismiss” (Document No. 69) filed July 1, 2013, and “Plaintiff’s Reply
To Defendant’s Response To Plaintiff’s Motion For Defendant To Submit Full Transcripts Of
Depositions / Plaintiff’s Motion For Extension Of Time To Respond To Defendant’s Dispositive
Motion” (Document Nos. 74, 75) filed on July 22, 2013.1

The parties have consented to

Magistrate Judge jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), and immediate review of these
motions is appropriate. Having carefully considered the motions and the record, the undersigned
will grant the motions.
Plaintiff’s first motion requests that Defendant provide hard copies of the full deposition
transcripts of:

John Cavanaugh II, John Cowan, Michael Gilbert, and Kimberly Shareef.

(Document No. 69; Document No. 74). The “Federal Defendant’s Response…” (Document No.
72) states that Plaintiff was “provided full copies, in PDF format, of the depositions requested by
Plaintiff in her Motion” via email. (Document No. 72, pp.1-2). Defendant further states that it is
Plaintiff is respectfully advised that: “Motions shall not be included in responsive briefs. Each motion
should be set forth as a separately filed pleading.” See Local Rule 7.1 (C)(2).
1

willing to provide “those depositions or additional depositions in hard copy format.” (Document
No. 72, p.2).
Although the undersigned is persuaded that Defendant’s submission of full copies of the
requested deposition transcripts via email was sufficient, Defendant’s willingness to provide hard
copies in this instance is appreciated. As such, Plaintiff’s motion will be granted.
To the extent Plaintiff again seeks additional time to file her response to Defendant’s
pending dispositive motion, that request will also be granted.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that “Plaintiff’s Motion For Defendant To Submit
All Transcripts Of Depositions…” (Document No. 69) is GRANTED. Defendant shall provide
Plaintiff with hard copies of the requested transcripts discussed herein on or before August 9,
2013.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that “…Plaintiff’s Motion For Extension Of Time To
Respond To Defendant’s Dispositive Motion” (Document No. 75) is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall
file a response to “Federal Defendant’s Motion To Dismiss Or, In The Alternative, For Summary
Judgment” (Document No. 62) on or before August 23, 2013.
SO ORDERED.
Signed: July 29, 2013

2