Shell v. Ohio Family Rights et al

Filing 82

Memorandum and Order that a response to plaintiff's 81 Motion for Reconsideration to be filed within 14 days, which is due Tuesday, 9/20/2016, as instructed by the Court at the status conference held 9/6/16. The case management da tes are modified, as follows: The parties' initial disclosures are due no later than Tuesday, 9/20/2016. The discovery deadline is Wednesday, 11/30/2016. The dispositive motion deadline is Friday, 12/30/2016. The motion for protecti ve order (doc. 56 ), and the motion to strike same (doc. 58 ) are DENIED, although the parties are cautioned as to the appropriate behavior to be followed in the course of this litigation, as discussed at the 9/6/2016 conference, and as set forth in this order. The motions for sanctions (doc. 68 , and 69 ) are DENIED at this juncture, without prejudice to renew. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kenneth S. McHargh on 9/7/16. (M,De)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

SUZANNE SHELL,

Plaintiff,
vs.
OHIO FAMILY RIGHTS,
et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 1:15CV1757

Magistrate Judge Kenneth McHargh

MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER

McHARGH, Mag.J.
A status conference was held before the court on September 6, 2016.
The pro se plaintiff Suzanne Shell filed suit in this court against pro se
defendants Ray R. Lautenschlager and Rosalind (“Roz”) A. McAllister, as well as
against several parties who have since been dismissed. Shell filed an amended
complaint on January 19, 2016, alleging copyright infringement against the
defendants concerning three works with copyrights allegedly registered and owned
by Shell. (Doc. 15.)
The court addressed several matters at the conference. Shell had filed two
motions for sanctions (doc. 68, 69), based largely on allegations that the defendants

had violated Civil Rule 11(b) by making improper or frivolous filings. Shell had
earlier filed a motion for protective order, alleging that the defendants had been
making “scandalous, malicious, vexatious, irrelevant, and meritless arguments and
diatribes” against her. (Doc. 56, ¶ 6.) For example, Shell pointed out that the
defendants were threatening to bring criminal charges against her, under Ohio Rev.
Code § 2903.11 (menacing by stalking); 42 U.S. Code § 3617 (interference, coercion,
or intimidation); and 18 U.S. Code § 1512 (tampering with a witness, victim, or
informant), simply for pursuing her case in this litigation. See., e.g, doc. 58, ¶ 7;
doc. 60, ¶¶ 3-4.
The court pointed out that motions filed in this court must have a good faith
basis. Threats of criminal action, based simply on a party’s pursuing civil litigation,
are improper. The parties were cautioned that pro se litigants are expected to
follow the rules of court.
The court found that plaintiff’s motions for sanctions were well-taken, but in
light of the defendants’ pro se status, no sanctions will be imposed at this point.
However, the parties were warned that further such conduct would result in
sanctions, which could include monetary sanctions, the award of default judgment,
or other sanctions provided by the rules, or within the inherent power of the court.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c), and 37(b); Local Rule 7.1(i). See also Monsanto Co. v.
Ralph, 382 F.3d 1374, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Freeland v. Amigo, 103 F.3d 1271,
1276-1277 (6th Cir. 1997) (Rule 37 sanctions); Hartleip v. McNeilab, Inc., 83 F.3d
767, 778 (6th Cir. 1996) (Rule 11 sanctions); Codonics, Inc. v. Datcard Sys., Inc., No.

1:08CV1885, 2009 WL 1565951, at *2 (N .D. Ohio June 3, 2009) ((sanctions under
inherent powers when party acts in bad faith, or vexatiously).
Shell had filed a Motion for Reconsideration (doc. 81), which the defendants
had not yet received, prior to the conference. The defendants shall respond to the
motion for reconsideration within fourteen (14) days.
At the conference, Shell hand-delivered to the defendants her revised
interrogatories and requests for production of documents. The defendants must
answer these interrogatories, or serve objections, within thirty days of the service of
the interrogatories. Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(2). “The grounds for objecting to an
interrogatory must be stated with specificity.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(4).
At the Case Management Conference (CMC) held on July 1, 2016, the court
had set a discovery deadline of December 12, 2016, and a dispositive motion
deadline of September 26, 2016. (Doc. 65.) As set forth at yesterday’s conference,
the court will adjust those dates, as follows. The parties’ initial disclosures are due
no later than Tuesday, Sept. 20, 2016. Defendant Lautenschlager represented to
the court that he had mailed his disclosures to plaintiff Shell, but as Shell states
that she did not receive them, Lautenschlager agreed to re-send them.
The discovery deadline will be Wednesday, November 30, 2016. The parties
were reminded that they are expected to comply with the Local Rules, if any
discovery disputes arise. The proper procedure (LR 37.1) to address any discovery
disputes has been set out in several of the court’s previous rulings. See, e.g., doc. 77,
at 2-3; doc. 78, at 2. The dispositive motion deadline is Friday, December 30, 2016.

The court notes that the status conference was temporarily adjourned, at one
point, for another judicial officer to conduct settlement discussions. It is the court’s
understanding that the case was settled, as to plaintiff Shell and defendant
McAllister only. The court expects that a docket entry reflecting same will follow.

SUMMARY
The case management dates are modified, as follows: The parties’ initial
disclosures are due no later than Tuesday, Sept. 20, 2016. The discovery deadline is
Wednesday, November 30, 2016. The dispositive motion deadline is Friday,
December 30, 2016.
The motion for protective order (doc. 56), and the motion to strike same (doc.
58) are DENIED, although the parties are cautioned as to the appropriate behavior
to be followed in the course of this litigation, as discussed at the Sept. 6 conference,
and as set forth above. The motions for sanctions (doc. 68, 69) are DENIED at this
juncture, without prejudice to renew.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Sept. 7, 2016

/s/ Kenneth S. McHargh
Kenneth S. McHargh
United States Magistrate Judge