Amacher v. Adcock et al

Filing 30

ORDER FOR PRO SE PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE AND COMPLY WITH JULY 13 ORDER AND DISCOVERY OBLIGATIONS: Plaintiff is hereby ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE in writing on or before August 15, 2022, why her case should not be dismissed with pre judice pursuant to either Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for her failure to prosecute this case or comply with the Courts orders or under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(f)2 or 37(b) for failure to obey an order, to provide discovery, and/or make required disclosures. Plaintiff is FOREWARNED that any failure to BOTH (1) comply with all requirements of the July 13 Order by August 15, 2022, and (2) to file an appropriate response to this Order by August 15, 2022, will result in dismissal of this case with prejudice without further notice. Signed by Magistrate Judge Susan K Lee on 8/1/2022. (BJL)Mailed to Jenna Amacher PO Box 836 Tullahoma, TN 37388

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
CHATTANOOGA DIVISION
JENNA AMACHER,
Plaintiff,
v.
TREY ADCOCK, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 1:21-CV-00285-SKL

ORDER FOR PRO SE PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE AND COMPLY WITH JULY 13
ORDER AND DISCOVERY OBLIGATIONS
In its Order issued July 13, 2022, the Court noted that the parties had not filed a discovery
plan as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f) and the Court’s Scheduling Order
governing this case [Doc. 28].1 Therefore, the Court ordered the parties to confer and file the
requisite plan by July 27. The Court also ordered that the plan include a certification from the
parties that they complied with the Rule 26(f) discovery planning requirements and made their
Rule 26(a)(1) disclosures. All parties were forewarned that failing to comply with the July 13
Order or obligations established in the Scheduling Order would result in sanctions. Additionally,
because of Plaintiff’s failure to properly participate in discovery, she was forewarned that her
failure to comply with the July 13 Order or her discovery obligations would result in sanctions, up
to and including dismissal of this action with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 37 and/or 41(b).

1

The Court also held Defendants’ requests for admission were deemed admitted, and ordered
Plaintiff to properly serve complete and full responses to Defendants’ interrogatories and requests
for production of documents within 14 days.

Case 1:21-cv-00285-SKL Document 30 Filed 08/01/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 125

Defendants filed a “Report of Defendants’ Planning Meeting” on July 27, 2022 [Doc. 29].
They state they “circulated their initial disclosures,” but Plaintiff “has not exchanged” hers [id. at
Page ID # 122]. They further explain the parties agreed to conduct the Rule 26(f) planning
conference on July 26 at 9:00 a.m., but Plaintiff did not appear. Later, Plaintiff “circulated an
email saying she was late for the meeting and will be supplying her Rule 26 disclosures by the
week’s end and will supply discovery responses on an unknown timeline.” [Id. at Page ID # 122
n.1]. It is unknown whether Plaintiff ever provided the ordered discovery responses.
In light of Defendants’ representations and the overall record of this case, Plaintiff is hereby
ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE in writing on or before August 15, 2022, why her case should
not be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to either Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for her
failure to prosecute this case or comply with the Court’s orders or under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 16(f)2 or 37(b) for failure to obey an order, to provide discovery, and/or make required
disclosures. Plaintiff is FOREWARNED that any failure to BOTH (1) comply with all
requirements of the July 13 Order by August 15, 2022, and (2) to file an appropriate response
to this Order by August 15, 2022, will result in dismissal of this case with prejudice without
further notice.
SO ORDERED.
ENTER:
s/fâátÇ ^A _xx
SUSAN K. LEE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

Rule 16(f)(1) provides that on motion or on its own, the Court may issue any just orders, including
those authorized by Rule 37(b)(2)(A)(ii)–(vii), if a party: “(A) fails to appear at a scheduling or
other pretrial conference; (B) is substantially unprepared to participate—or does not participate in
good faith—in the conference; or(C) fails to obey a scheduling or other pretrial order.”
2
Case 1:21-cv-00285-SKL Document 30 Filed 08/01/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 126