McFarland-Laswson v. US Department of Housing and Urban Development et al

Filing 217

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge William E Duffin on 11/4/2022 GRANTING 215 Plaintiff's Motion for an Accommodation; the Defendant is to provide Plaintiff with documents in paper format as opposed to email, USB or CD; and GRANTING her reques t for a hearing in lieu of her being required to reply in writing. The Clerk shall schedule an afternoon in-person hearing; counsel for defendant may appear by phone; also GRANTING 216 Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time as to 169 Plaintiff's Third Motion to Compel. She need not reply in writing; the court will schedule a hearing at which she may reply in person. (cc: all counsel and mailed to pro se Plaintiff)(lz)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
JAMESETTA MCFARLAND-LAWSON,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 16-CV-685

MARCIA FUDGE,
Defendant.
ORDER
Jamesetta McFarland-Lawson is representing herself in this protracted action.
Over a year ago she filed her third motion to compel. (ECF No. 169.) Resolution of that
motion was delayed as McFarland-Lawson asked for clarifications (ECF Nos. 179, 184),
both sides requested extensions of time (ECF Nos. 181, 184, 189, 206), and the court
considered the defendant’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 204). The
defendant responded to the motion to compel on October 19, 2022. (ECF No. 211.)
McFarland-Lawson’s response was due on November 3, 2022. (ECF Nos. 208, 210.)
On

October

28,

2022,

McFarland-Lawson

filed

a

“Request

for

an

Accommodation.” (ECF No. 215.) She asks that the court order that defense counsel
“provide the Plaintiff with alternative communication with documents provided.” (ECF

No. 215 at 1.) She refers to both Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1991 as the bases for her request.
The briefing on this motion is not yet complete. See Civ. L.R. 7(b)-(c). However,
on November 3, 2022, McFarland-Lawson filed a motion for an extension of time to
reply and stated that she could not reply until the court rules on her request for an
accommodation. (ECF No. 216.) For the sake of expediency the court will address
McFarland-Lawson’s request for an accommodation without awaiting full briefing.
Neither the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 nor the Americans with Disabilities Act of
1991 apply to the federal judiciary. McFarland-Lawson also cites Blackhouse v. Doe, 2011
ME 86, 24 A.3d 72, which is a state court decision and not relevant to proceedings in
federal court. McFarland-Lawson has not identified any authority demonstrating that
she is entitled to a reasonable accommodation when suing a federal agency.
The court, however, will grant McFarland-Lawson’s request that the defendant
provide her with documents in paper format as opposed to email, USB, or CD. (ECF
No. 215 at 2.) Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5(b)(2)(E) permits electronic service only if
the recipient consents in writing. If McFarland-Lawson ever consented to electronic
service, she has now revoked that consent. Providing McFarland-Lawson documents in
a physical electronic medium such as CD or USB is generally not consistent with Rule 5,
which refers to “papers.” An exception applies when the evidence or filing is not
amenable to a paper format (e.g., a video or audio recording).

2

As for the remaining aspects of McFarland-Lawson’s request, the court will grant
her request for a hearing in lieu of her being required to reply in writing. The Clerk
shall schedule an afternoon in-person hearing. Counsel for the defendant may appear
by phone. McFarland-Lawson may bring a “support person” to court. However, the
court will not order that she be permitted to bring her “service animal” to court. For
many reasons, including building security, the presence of animals in the federal
courthouse is severely restricted. The record before the court is insufficient to permit the
court to grant this request. McFarland-Lawson’s request is further denied in all other
respects.
As for McFarland-Lawson’s motion for an extension of time (ECF No. 216), the
motion is granted. She need not reply in writing; the court will schedule a hearing at
which she may reply in person.
SO ORDERED.
Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin this 4th day of November, 2022.

_________________________
WILLIAM E. DUFFIN
U.S. Magistrate Judge

3