Opinion
Lead Case No. 1:11-cv-884 Case No. 1:12-cv-629
08-21-2013
CATHERINE J. ZANG, et al., Plaintiffs v. JOSEPH ZANG, et al., Defendants JAVIER LUIS, Plaintiff, v. JOSEPH ZANG, et al., Defendants.
Dlott, J.
Bowman, M.J.
MEMORANDUM ORDER
On August 1, 2013, the Court entered a Memorandum Order that addressed several pending motions and simultaneously set a new deadline for the completion of the deposition of Javier Luis, the pro se Plaintiff in Case No. 1:12-cv-629. (Doc. 101). Among the Court's rulings were the denials of Plaintiff's motion for a protective order and to quash a Notice of Deposition, both of which sought a judicial ruling that would permit Plaintiff to avoid submitting to an oral deposition over a two-day period of time in Cincinnati, Ohio. (Id.). Shortly after entry of the August 1, 2013 Order, defense counsel contacted the Court to request an informal discovery conference concerning the date of Plaintiff's deposition. On August 13, 2013, the Court convened a telephonic conference, following which the Court addressed additional issues relating to the timing of Plaintiff's deposition, which has now been scheduled for September 9-10, 2013 in Cincinnati. (Doc. 113).
The case filed by Mr. Luis has been consolidated with Case No. 1:11-cv-629 for pretrial proceedings.
Because the issue to be discussed was merely a scheduling issue, Defendants did not submit a statement to the Court.
--------
In addition to Objections to the undersigned's prior order, which Objections remain pending before the presiding district judge, (see Docs. 107, 108, 114), Plaintiff Luis recently filed a "Notice of Intention to Submit Motion Seeking ADA Accommodations for Deposition." (Doc. 115). Within the past week, Plaintiff also has emailed the docketing clerk to the undersigned magistrate judge numerous times, primarily concerning procedural issues and also informing the undersigned of his latest attempt to file a Third Amended Objections to Doc. 101.
As a "Notice," rather than a motion, the document recently filed by Plaintiff Luis technically requires no action by this Court. In general, this Court does not address "Notices" but will address and rule on only formal motions that are properly captioned and docketed as such. For reasons of judicial economy and fairness to opposing counsel, it is the practice of the undersigned not to address "Notices" even when it is clear that they are procedurally improper.
In this case, the record reflects that pro se Plaintiff Luis files "Notices" with some regularity. (See, e.g., Docs. 58, 104, 105, 106, 109, 110, 112, 115 in Lead Case No. 11-cv-884 alone). While the undersigned has no desire to scrutinize every "Notice," Plaintiff's most recently filed "Notice" was briefly reviewed because it appears to pertain to the Court's last order requiring Plaintiff Luis to submit to an oral deposition, and seeks guidance from the Court. Having undertaken a cursory review, the undersigned will strike the referenced Notice as procedurally improper. Insofar as Plaintiff seeks any relief from this Court, he must do so by filing a properly captioned motion, or, to the extent that he seeks to challenge the rulings of the undersigned magistrate judge, by filing written Objections directed to a specific Order or Report and Recommendation, which will then be ruled upon by the presiding district judge.
On the other hand, to the extent that this pro se Plaintiff appears to have continuing questions concerning the logistics of his deposition, the undersigned will sua sponte schedule a telephonic hearing at which Plaintiff (and Defendants) may be heard to address those concerns.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED HEREIN:
1. All parties shall appear, whether pro se or through counsel, at a telephonic hearing to be held on August 29, 2013 at 2:30 p.m., for the purpose of discussing any final issues pertaining to the upcoming deposition of Plaintiff Luis, and Plaintiff's desire to file third Amended Objections to Order (Doc. 101);
2. Pursuant to the general practice of the undersigned magistrate judge concerning informal discovery disputes, any party may submit to chambers a single statement summarizing disputed issues, not to exceed two pages in length. Such pre-hearing statements are not required, but any party who wishes to submit such a statement must transmit it by email to bowman_chambers@ohsd.uscourts.gov not later than 5:00 p.m. on August 28, 2013. To the extent that any party wishes to be heard at the August 29, 2013 hearing on any discovery issues not related to Plaintiff's upcoming deposition, he or she should include them in the referenced two-page summary. The Court reiterates that the summary statements are not to be filed of record but should reflect email service on all parties listed of record or their counsel;
3. Plaintiff's "Notice" announcing his intention to file a future motion relating to his upcoming deposition (Doc. 115) shall be STRICKEN from the record as procedurally improper. Should Plaintiff wish to file a formal motion in lieu of the informal summary statement referenced in paragraph 2 of this Order, he may do so on or before 5:00 p.m. on August 28, 2013;
4. In light of her absence at the undersigned's last telephonic hearing, counsel for the six individual Plaintiffs in Lead Case No. 11-cv-884, Ms. Jennifer Coriell, is specifically reminded of her obligation to appear at the upcoming telephonic hearing, or to notify this Court well in advance as to why she cannot appear at the scheduled time;
5. In order to participate in the hearing at 2:30 p.m. on August 29, 2013, all parties (whether pro se or through counsel) shall call in to the Court's conference line at 888-363-4749, using the numeric access code of 8651321, and security code of 2010.
________________________
Stephanie K. Bowman
United States Magistrate Judge