Dennison et al v. Knox County Schools et al (TWP1)

Filing 75

ORDER granting 74 Motion to Amend/Correct. Signed by Magistrate Judge C Clifford Shirley, Jr on 5/22/17. (JBR)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
AT KNOXVILLE
C. MICHELLE DENNISON, individually and as
next friend of P.D., a minor child,

Plaintiff,
v.
KNOX COUNTY BOARD OF
EDUCATION et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 3:16-CV-145-TWP-CCS

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This case is before the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Rules of this Court,
and Standing Order 13-02. The parties appeared for a telephone conference on May 19, 2017, to
address a discovery dispute. Attorney James Friauf appeared on behalf of the Plaintiffs. Attorney
David Wigler appeared on behalf of Defendants Ashley Jessie, Kayla Montgomery, and Cheryl
Hickman.
The parties’ discovery dispute arises from the Plaintiffs’ refusal to provide substantive
responses to the Defendants’ First Set of Admissions, Interrogatories, and Requests for Production
of Documents served on the Plaintiffs on April 6, 2017. Specifically, the Plaintiffs responded to
the written discovery on May 11, 2017, by objecting to each interrogatory and request for
production of documents primarily on the basis that the Defendants already had an opportunity to
discover the information sought when Ms. Dennison was deposed. The Defendants argue that
discovery may proceed in any sequence and that the information requested is relevant and
proportional to the Plaintiffs’ claims. During the telephone conference, the parties informed the
Court that they had worked out their dispute relating to Interrogatory 1. In this regard, the Plaintiffs

agreed to supplement their response to Admission 17, and the Defendants agreed that this would
resolve the parties’ dispute concerning Interrogatory 1.
After reviewing the Defendants’ written discovery and the Plaintiffs’ objections, and in
light of the arguments presented during the conference call, the Court finds that the Defendants
are entitled to conduct written discovery despite depositions having taken place. See Fed. R. Civ.
P. 26(d)(3)(A) (unless the parties stipulate otherwise or by order of the court, the “methods of
discovery may be used in any sequence.”). Moreover, in balancing the importance of the
information sought against the burden of production, the Court finds that the time and cost placed
on the Plaintiffs in answering the Defendants’ written discovery is minimal. The Plaintiffs are
admonished that the failure to turn over discovery may result in the Plaintiffs being prohibited
from using the same at trial. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs are ORDERED to provide full and
complete responses to the Defendants’ interrogatories and requests for production of documents
on or before June 2, 2017. The Court notes that Plaintiffs’ counsel agreed to speak with defense
counsel by phone next week in an effort to identify the specific information sought.
Finally, the parties addressed the Plaintiffs’ recently filed Motion to Amend Response to
Request for Admission [Doc. 74]. The Defendants stated they did not have any objection to the
motion. Therefore, the Court finds the Motion to Amend Response to Request for Admission
[Doc. 74] is well-taken, and the same is GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
ENTER:
s/ C. Clifford Shirley, Jr.
United States Magistrate Judge

2