Parris v. Laliberte et al

Filing 67

ORDER denying 61 Motion for Extension of Time; granting 64 Motion to Compel; granting 65 Motion for Extension of Time. Signed by Magistrate Judge Shiva V Hodges on 11/14/2013.(abuc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
COLUMBIA DIVISION
LaPonda Phillips Parris,
Plaintiff,
vs.
SCANA,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

C/A No.: 3:12-2202-TLW-SVH

ORDER

This matter comes before the court on the following motions: (1) Plaintiff’s
motion for an indefinite extension [Entry #61]; (2) the motion of Defendant SCANA
Services, Inc.1 to compel [Entry #64]; and (3) Defendant’s motion for an extension of
time to file dispositive motions [Entry #65]. Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(A), and Local Rule 73.02(B)(2)(g) (D.S.C.), this matter has been assigned to
the undersigned for all pretrial proceedings.
I.

Plaintiff’s Motion for an Extension
Plaintiff originally filed this employment discrimination case pro se on August 3,

2012. [Entry #1]. After Defendant answered on October 19, 2012 [Entry #29], Plaintiff
filed a motion on October 30, 2012, requesting an indefinite extension of time to find an
attorney because she realized she was “in over [her] head with this case.” [Entry #39].
The court granted a 90 day suspension of the deadlines to allow Plaintiff to find an
attorney, or continue to proceed pro se. [Entry #45]. On the last day of the 90-day
extension, Plaintiff filed another motion for an indefinite extension to find an attorney.

1

Defendant asserts that its proper name is SCANA Services, Inc. [Entry #29 at 1].

[Entry #44]. The court granted an additional 30 day suspension of the deadlines to allow
Plaintiff to find an attorney, or continue to proceed pro se. [Entry #45]. The court noted
that “No further suspension of the deadlines will be granted absent exceptional
circumstances.” Id. On March 8, 2013, Jennifer Munter Stark, Esq. (“Attorney Stark”)
entered an appearance on Plaintiff’s behalf, and the court issued an amended scheduling
granting an additional seven months for discovery. [Entry #52]. Eleven days prior to the
close of discovery, Attorney Stark filed a motion to withdraw as counsel for Plaintiff,
with Plaintiff’s consent. [Entry #57]. The court granted the motion to withdraw on
October 23, 2013. [Entry #58]. On October 25, 2013, Plaintiff filed another motion for
an indefinite extension to find an attorney and to “work and make some money to take
this case forward.” [Entry #61].
As detailed more fully in the undersigned’s October 23, 2013 order [Entry #61],
Plaintiff has been given multiple extensions of time to find an attorney. To the extent
Plaintiff seeks another indefinite extension of time to find an attorney, her motion is
denied. However, the undersigned will issue a second amended scheduling order that
extends by 60 days the deadlines for the completion of discovery and the filing of
dispositive motions. No further extensions will be granted. Plaintiff is reminded that she
is expected to comply with these deadlines regardless of whether she retains an attorney
to represent her in this matter, and her failure to retain new counsel will not excuse any
failure to comply with deadlines set by the court. If Plaintiff wishes to abandon this case,
she may file a stipulation of dismissal, signed by counsel for Defendant, in compliance
with Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). Otherwise, if Plaintiff fails to proceed with this case
2

according to the federal rules and court’s deadlines, the court may dismiss the case and
assess costs against her.
II.

Defendant’s Motion to Compel
In its motion to compel, Defendant requests that Plaintiff be ordered to supplement

her responses to its discovery requests. [Entry #54]. Defendant attaches an excerpt from
Plaintiff’s deposition in which she stated that she has a filing cabinet containing
documents that she did not turn over to her attorney. [Entry #64-3]. Defendant’s motion
to compel is granted, and Plaintiff is directed to serve Defendant with supplemental
discovery responses by November 25, 2013. The supplemental responses should include
the production of all documents relevant to a claim or defense that have not yet been
provided to Defendant which are not otherwise subject to an applicable privilege.
Plaintiff is advised that failure to comply with this directive may result in sanctions,
including striking a claim, dismissal of this action, and requiring her to pay Defendant’s
attorney’s fees and expenses in attempting to obtain discovery to which it is entitled
under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
III.

Motion for an Extension to File Dispositive Motions
Defendant requests an extension of the deadline for filing dispositive motions until

Plaintiff has provided full and complete supplemental discovery responses. [Entry #65].
Defendant’s motion is granted. The new deadline for filing dispositive motions is
December 30, 2013, as reflected in the separately-issued second amended scheduling
order.

3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

November 14, 2013
Columbia, South Carolina

Shiva V. Hodges
United States Magistrate Judge

4