Opinion
2:22-cv-02069-JTF-atc
01-19-2023
JANICE BROADY (DAVIS), Plaintiff, v. MID-SOUTH TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT, INC., MEMPHIS AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY, THOMAS DAVISON, and JIMMY STRICKLAND, Defendant.
ORDER ON OUTSTANDING MOTIONS
JOHN T. FOWLKES, JR. JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Before the Court are five outstanding Motions. First is Plaintiff Janice Broady's Pro Se Motion to Subpoena Records, filed on March 24, 2022. (ECF No. 20.) Second is Defendant Memphis Area Transit Authority's (“MATA”) Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Answer Interrogatories, filed on August 1, 2022. (ECF No. 49.) Third and fourth are two motions filed by Broady that seek permission to bring her cell phone into the courtroom, as well as an addendum seeking the admission of certain video evidence. (ECF Nos. 58 & 62.) Fifth and finally is Broady's Motion for a Jury Trial, filed on December 12, 2022. (ECF No. 71.) The Court addressed and ruled on all of these motions at a status conference held on January 19, 2023, and will summarize those holdings here.
First, the Pro Se Motion to Subpoena Records is GRANTED IN PART. Defendant voiced no opposition to the production of inspection and maintenance reports of the relevant bus from 2021 and 2022, as well as no opposition to the production of any records reflecting contacts Broady had with MATA Human Resources. Finally, the Defendant stated that they would produce three to five pages that had been withheld from Broady's personnel file so long as they were produced under a protective order. The Defendant shall have until February 24 to produce the described materials, with the personnel file material production conditioned on the entry of a protective order by the Court.
Second, the Court DENIES AS MOOT MATA's Motion to Compel. The parties indicated that they had resolved the issues and that a dispute no longer exists.
Third, the Court GRANTS IN PART Broady's motions regarding her cell phone. Broady will be allowed to bring her cell phone into the courtroom at trial. However, the Court DENIES her request to have certain video material admitted as evidence. Issues regarding the admission of evidence are premature at this time and will be addressed closer to trial with the benefit of argument.
Fourth, the Court DENIES AS MOOT Broady's Motion for a Jury Trial. A jury demand has already been made in this case; the motion was unnecessary.
IT IS SO ORDERED