KENDALL v. POTTER
Filing
130
MEMORANDUM OPINION re 126 Motion to Open Discovery. Motion to Open Discovery is hereby GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, for reasons contained in the attached Memorandum Opinion. Signed by Judge Mark R. Hornak on 5/22/12. (bdb)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
BETH E. KENDALL,
Plaintiff,
v.
PATRICK R. DONAHOE,
Postmaster General ofthe United States
Postal Service,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Civil Action No. 2:10-cv-1209
Judge Mark R. Hornak
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Mark R. Hornak, United States District Judge
Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs Motion to Open Discovery. For the reasons which
follow, the Motion will be granted in part, and denied in part.
This case has been pending for nearly two (2) years, and it is only now reaching the stage
where the battle will be joined at summary judgment. Plaintiff is currently represented by able
and experienced counsel, just as she was on three (3) prior occasions in this case.
Those
relationships ended with the discharge of her lawyers in at least two of those representations, and
the withdrawal of counsel in the third. Documents that Plaintiff produced to the Court seem to
indicate that such withdrawal was related to what appeared to be irreconcilable differences
between Plaintiff and counsel. For the balance of this odyssey, Plaintiff has represented herself
in prosecuting her claims of unlawful employment discrimination in her discharge. She has done
so with earnestness and seemingly full engagement. She has personally appeared in open court
with considerable skill and aptitude, and has deposed five (5) witnesses. Both this member of
1
the Court, and the Judge to whom this case was previously assigned, have fully advised Plaintiff
of her right to engage counsel, and have sought to allow her the greatest degree of latitude during
those intervals when she was without counsel. In short, Plaintiff has been given a wide berth, the
benefit of every doubt, along with time and opportunities to engage in this litigation far beyond
those provided in other cases, all in keeping with her intermittent pro
status.
With the appearance of her latest lawyers, she has asked for still more discovery. The
docket reveals that to date, the total formal discovery period allotted to this case has been
approximately 288 days, nearly double the time allotted for discovery in a civil case in this
Court. It is averred by Defendant, and not disputed, that thousands of file documents about
Plaintiff and her employment (and its termination) have been provided to her by Defendant. She
has been represented by competent counsel, albeit not continuously. She has had the ability to
confront, under oath in a deposition, those who she stated were most involved, from her
perspective, in the termination of her employment. In short, the record to date is a full one, and a
review of Plaintiffs Motion, the supporting statement that her new counsel provided, the
responses of the Defendant, and the Court's independent consideration of the record
demonstrates that there is not good cause to reopen discovery as such, nor to allow the "reĀ
deposition" of Ms. Fetzner.
That said, her newest counsel has requested some information, by way of discovery, that
appears to the Court to not be facially duplicative of information already provided to Plaintiff by
deposition or otherwise, nor likely to cause significant delay to the resolution of this case, nor
substantial burden to the Defendant to produce. Therefore, the Defendant shall provide the
following to counsel for the Plaintiff, on the terms stated, on or before June 15,2012, the Court
concluding that these items are of at least arguable discoverability under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26, and
2
that the potential value to Plaintiff in receiving them in order to assist her in prosecuting her case
sufficiently outweighs the burden of producing them:
1.
The identity of all Postal Service employees who, at the time of Plaintiff s
employment termination had, within the prior 24 months, served as an
Acting Postmaster in the Erie District.
2.
The identity of all Postal Service employees in the Erie District who were
discharged by Ms. Fetzner for any reason, or who were discharged by any
supervisor for the same reasons as Plaintiff was discharged, within 24
months prior to Plaintiffs discharge, and to date.
3.
Defendant shall provide a complete copy of Plaintiffs personnel file.
4.
Defendant shall provide a copy of any Postal Service policy in force at the
time of Plaintiff s discharge that related to the processes for discharge of
an employee in Plaintiffs classification, and/or which set out any standard
of conduct which Plaintiff was alleged to have violated.
5.
Defendant shall allow counsel (only) for Plaintiff to examine, at the
offices of counsel for Defendant, the personnel file of Terry Fetzner.
Defendant shall preserve such file in the event that it is required for trial.
In all other respects, the Plaintiff s Motion to Reopen Discovery is denied.
An appropriate order will issue.
Mark R. Hornak
United States District Court
Dated: May 22, 2012
cc:
All Counsel of Record
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?