Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

McCarthy v. Webster University

United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division

October 14, 2014

TRACEY McCARTHY, Plaintiff,
v.
WEBSTER UNIVERSITY, Defendant.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

CHARLES A. SHAW, District Judge.

This closed matter is before the Court on plaintiff's two pro se motions pursuant to Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff filed a "Rule 60 Motion for Relief from Judgment and Order", in which she requests relief "From the Court's November 7, 2012 Judgment and Order of sanctions upon plaintiff in response to Defendant's October 25, 2012 Motion for Sanctions." Defendant Webster University filed a memorandum in opposition to the motion. Plaintiff then filed a second "Rule 60 Motion for Relief from Judgment and Order", which appears to be nearly identical. For the following reasons, the motions will be denied.

Background

Plaintiff, who is a tenured associate professor of legal studies, initially filed her employment discrimination complaint against Webster University on September 16, 2011. At the time her complaint was filed, plaintiff was represented by attorney Donnell Smith. The parties proceeded to discovery and on April 2, 2012, the case was referred to mediation pursuant to the Case Management Order. Mr. Smith moved to withdraw from this case following mediation. It was apparent that the attorney-client relationship had broken down, and on July 10, 2012, the Court granted plaintiff a 30-day withdrawal period to find a new attorney. No other attorney entered an appearance, therefore, plaintiff proceeded with this case pro se.

On August13, 2012, defendant filed a motion to compel. Plaintiff had not provided defendant with written responses to its documents requests, which were served when plaintiff was represented by counsel, and plaintiff had not executed full medical releases, as required. On September 25, 2012, the Court held a hearing on the motion to compel, despite being properly noticed, plaintiff did not appear for the hearing. The Court heard argument on defendant's motion and granted the motion. Plaintiff was ordered to provide defendant with written responses to defendant's request for production of document and all documents responsive to document request No. 6. She was also ordered to execute full medical record authorizations. Plaintiff was warned in the Order that her failure to comply might result in dismissal. Plaintiff did not comply with the terms of this Order. Plaintiff did execute medical releases, but she only provide written responses to four of the fifty-eight document requests.

On October 2, 2012, defendant served plaintiff with a deposition notice to take her deposition on October 22, 2012. Defense counsel did take plaintiff's deposition in May 2012, but at the time he was unable to complete the deposition. Plaintiff agreed on the written record that the parties would leave the record open, and that she would complete the deposition at a later date. Plaintiff did not file a motion for a protective order in response to the October 2, 2012 deposition notice, and she did not appear for her deposition.

On October 25, 2012, defendant filed a motion for sanctions asking that the Court dismiss plaintiff's case for her failure to comply with the Court's Order and her discovery obligations, including failing to appear for deposition. The Court held a hearing on the motion on November 7, 2012. At the hearing, plaintiff had no valid excuse for failing to comply with the Court's Order. She stated that she did not fully understand what she had been ordered to do. She also laid part of the blame on her former counsel.

The Court granted defendant's motion for sanctions, in part. Defendant had requested dismissal, instead the Court fined plaintiff $500.00, and ordered her to pay the fees defendant incurred in pursuit of its motion to compel and motion for sanctions.[1] The Court also ordered plaintiff to fully and completely respond, without any objections, to defendant's written document requests. She was ordered to sit for the completion of her deposition. Plaintiff was warned in the written Order that "her failure to comply fully and timely with the terms of this Memorandum and Order will result in dismissal of this action with prejudice." See Doc. 80 (emphasis in original).

Plaintiff provided defendant with her written responses to defendant's document requests, and defense counsel resumed plaintiff's deposition as ordered. During her deposition, plaintiff testified that she remembered for the first time the identity of a provider who had counseled plaintiff in 2009 for the emotional distress she alleged she incurred as a result of defendant's discriminatory actions. Plaintiff refused to execute an authorization for the release of records from this provider. In addition, when asked whether she had completed a review of her own documents to determine if she had produced all documents responsive to defendant's document request, plaintiff responded that she had not because they numbered in the thousands.

On November 26, 2012, defendant filed another motion for sanctions. That same day plaintiff also filed a motion for sanctions against defense counsel, Travis Kearbey and Dennis Donnelly. In her motion, plaintiff maintains defense counsel breached their duty of candor with the Court and that they perpetrated fraud on the Court.

On January 8, 2013, the Court held a hearing on the two motions for sanctions. Plaintiff was represented by attorney Jaclyn Zimmermann, who had entered an appearance on plaintiff's behalf on December 14, 2012.

On January 10, 2013, the Court denied plaintiff's motion for sanction, finding it was entirely without merit and bordered on frivolous. In the same Memorandum and Order, the Court granted defendant's motion for sanctions and dismissed plaintiff's cause of action. The Court considered whether a lesser sanction is available or appropriate, but ultimately concluded that dismissal was warranted. The Court noted that plaintiff had willfully disregarded a number of Court orders, and that she was warned that failure to comply might result in dismissal. The Court found defendant had been prejudiced by plaintiff's deliberately evasive conduct. Furthermore, the Court noted that plaintiff had been plainly warned, both verbally and in written orders, that she must comply with court orders and her discovery obligations, and she had even been fined to no avail. The Court concluded the appropriate sanction was dismissal. Plaintiff did not file a notice of appeal. Instead she filed two motions for relief from final judgment, which are presently before the Court.

Discussion

A party in federal court may seek relief from final judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) relieves a party from a final ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.