Awkard v. Rammelsburg et al

Filing 246

ORDER in re: ECF No. 244, Minute Entry. Counsel for Defendant WDM is to provide to the court copies of all discovery requests and responses to the same as to all discovery propounded by Plaintiff or by any Defendant in this ma tter. Plaintiff will appear to complete her deposition to be re-noticed for a location in Florence, South Carolina. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Objection to Deposition/Motion for Protective Order, ECF No. 232 is granted in part. Plaintiff& #039;s Motion to Quash, ECF No. 241 , is denied without prejudice to any party raising objections concerning the documents at a later date. The court orders that Defendant resubmit the subpoenas; the subpoenaed parties (Baltimore VA Me dical Center, Charleston VA Medical Center, and Miami VA Healthcare System) are ordered to produce the requested documents to United States Magistrate Judge Kaymani D. West, United States District Court, 401 W. Evans Street, Florence, SC 29501 . Upon receipt of documents responsive to the subpoenas, the undersigned will treat the documents as confidential and will conduct an in camera review of the documents. During the hearing, counsel for Defendants made an oral motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 35 for Plaintiff to submit to a mental examination; Plaintiff readily agreed to submit to such an examination. The undersigned finds good cause exists for such an examination to take place and grants the oral m otion. Because Rule 35(2)(B) requires specifications of such an examination's details, counsel for Defendants is to provide that detail to the court and to Plaintiff. As discovery is ongoing because of these issues amongst the parties, the court continues to hold all deadlines in the Amended Scheduling Order, ECF No. 189 , in abeyance. A revised scheduling order will be issued at a later date. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kaymani D West on 2/27/2019. (mcot, ) Modified on 2/27/2019 to edit text (mcot, ).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
FLORENCE DIVISION
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
)
v.
)
Sharon Rammelsberg; Saudra Lavon )
Herrmann; Sharri Una Rammelsberg; )
William Douglas Management, Inc.; and )
Other Unknown Individuals,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
Veronica G. Awkard,

C/A No. 4:17-cv-01542-RBH-KDW

ORDER

On February 27, 2019, the court conducted a detailed telephonic hearing to discuss
various discovery-related matters raised by Plaintiff and Defendants. Appearing by telephone
were Plaintiff, Veronica G. Awkard (“Plaintiff” or “Awkard”), who is a former practicing
attorney representing herself in this matter; Todd Earle Rigler, counsel for Defendants Sharon
Rammelsberg, Saudra Lavon Herrmann, and Sharri Una Rammelsberg (collectively,
“Landlord Defendants”); and Henry Wilkins Frampton, IV, counsel for Defendant William
Douglas Management, Inc. (“WDM”).1 This short order is intended to memorialize in writing
several rulings the undersigned made from the bench during the hearing. In sum, the court
orders the following:2
1. Counsel for Defendant WDM is to provide to the court copies of all discovery requests
and responses to same as to all discovery propounded by Plaintiff or by any Defendant
G. Michael Smith, counsel for Myrtle Beach Resort Master Homeowners Association Inc.
(“MBRMHOA”), was also available by telephone. As MBRMHOA currently is not a party,
Smith did not actively participate in discussions concerning discovery.
2
As the hearing was conducted on the record, detailed discussion of these rulings is not
provided herein.
1

1

in this matter. Regarding responses to requests for production, copies of the produced
documents themselves are not required; a list of the produced documents (by Bates
number, where available) is sufficient.
2. Plaintiff will appear to complete her deposition to be re-noticed for a location in
Florence, South Carolina and taken by a colleague of Mr. Rigler. Counsel for the
Landlord Defendants will coordinate with Plaintiff for a mutually agreeable date for
this deposition to take place, and it may be videotaped. The court is to be advised when
this deposition has been completed. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Objection to
Deposition/Motion for Protective Order, ECF No. 232, is granted in part.
3. In Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash Subpoena for all Medical Records, ECF No. 241, she
objects to the subpoenas served by counsel for Defendant WDM on the Baltimore VA
Medical Center, Charleston VA Medical Center, and Miami VA Healthcare System;
see ECF No. 241-1. As an initial matter, the undersigned questions whether Plaintiff
has standing to object to subpoenas served on third parties. In any event, as discussed
on the record during the February 27, 2019 conference, the court orders that
Defendant resubmit the subpoenas but, rather than having responsive documents be
sent to Defendant, the subpoenaed parties (Baltimore VA Medical Center, Charleston
VA Medical Center, and Miami VA Healthcare System) are ordered to produce the
requested documents to United States Magistrate Judge Kaymani D. West, United
States District Court, 401 W. Evans Street, Florence, SC, 29501.3 Upon receipt of
documents responsive to the subpoenas, the undersigned will treat the documents as

Counsel for the party issuing the subpoenas is to inform the subpoenaed parties of these
instructions. The issuing party is to bear any costs associated with these productions and to
address any logistical issues associated with same.

3

2

confidential and will conduct an in camera review of the documents so that the court
may better understand some of the issues raised by the parties. Based on this ruling,
the Motion to Quash, ECF No. 241, is denied without prejudice to any party raising
objections concerning the documents at later date.
4. During the hearing, counsel for Defendants made an oral motion pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 35 for Plaintiff to submit to a mental examination based on
the results of a recent test that indicated Plaintiff may have issues with cognition.
Plaintiff readily agreed to submit to such an examination. The undersigned finds good
cause exists for such an examination to take place and grants the oral motion. Because
Rule 35(2)(B) requires specification of such an examination’s details, counsel for
Defendants is to provide that detail to the court and to Plaintiff.
5. As discovery is ongoing because of these issues amongst the parties, the court
continues to hold all deadlines in the Amended Scheduling Order, ECF No. 189, in
abeyance. A revised scheduling order will be issued at a later date.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

February 27, 2019
Florence, South Carolina

Kaymani D. West
United States Magistrate Judge

3