Opinion
Case No. 4:04 cv 75.
January 16, 2008
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the court on the following motions:
1. Supplement Plaintiff Loubser's Motion to Compel Defendant Justice and Justice Law Et. Al. To Comply with Plaintiff Loubser's First Request for Production of Documents and Things Defendant Courtney B. Justice and Justice Law Et Al and Corinna S.Montine, filed by the plaintiff on October 25, 2007 (DE 418);
2. Response to Motion to Quash Subpona [sic] to Sondra Rumple and Move for Order to Compel Production filed by the plaintiff on November 5, 2007 (DE 432);
3. Motion to Quash or Modify Subpoenas to Judges Kepner and Thacker filed by the movants, Judges Rex W. Kepner and Robert W. Thacker, on November 21, 2007 (DE 483);
4. Notice of Request for Sanctions filed by the plaintiff on November 27, 2007 (DE 499);
5. Motion to Strike Surreply filed by the movants, Judges Rex W. Kepner and Robert W. Thacker, on December 6, 2007 (DE 515);
6. Motion for Sanctions and Relief in Connection with Plaintiff's Admitted Deliberate Non-Disclosure of Evidence Which She Claims Supports Her Allegations of Conspiracy filed by the defendants, Dennis Hoover, Alexander Pala, and William Weist, on December 20, 2007 (DE 544); and
7. Renewed Motion to Compel Defendant Alexander R. Pala to sign Release Forms for Medical and Social Security filed by the plaintiff on December 28, 2007 (DE 547).
The motions will be ruled upon as follows:
1. The Supplement Plaintiff Loubser's Motion to Compel filed by the plaintiff on October 25, 2007 (DE 418) is DENIED;
2. The Response to Motion to Quash Subpona [sic] to Sondra Rumple and Move for Order to Compel Production filed by the plaintiff on November 5, 2007 (DE 432) was DENIED in this court's December 11, 2007 order. Accordingly, the clerk is DIRECTED TO TERMINATE this as a pending motion;
3. The Motion to Quash or Modify Subpoenas filed by the movants Judges Rex W. Kepner and Robert W. Thacker on November 21, 2007 (DE 483) is GRANTED;
4. The Notice of Request for Sanctions filed by the plaintiff on November 27, 2007 (DE 499) is not a motion. Accordingly, the clerk is DIRECTED TO TERMINATE this as a pending motion;
5. The Motion to Strike Surreply filed by the movants, Judges Rex W. Kepner and Robert W. Thacker, on December 6, 2007 (DE 515) is DENIED AS MOOT;
6. The Motion for Sanctions filed by the defendants, Dennis Hoover, Alexander Pala, and William Weist, on December 20, 2007 (DE 544) is DENIED; and
7. The Renewed Motion to Compel filed by the plaintiff on December 28, 2007 (DE 547) is DENIED.
Background
Annare Loubser's claims of a conspiracy in violation of her constitutional rights focus upon events surrounding her divorce from the defendant, Alexander Pala. This matter has been the subject of multiple discovery disputes. In light of the close of discovery in this matter, the court now addresses the last of these disputes.Discussion
On October 11, 2007, the plaintiff, Annare Loubser, filed motions to compel production from her former attorney, Courtney Justice, (DE 366) and a paralegal who worked for Justice (DE 368). The court addressed these motions in its order of December 11, 2007 ( See DE 529, p. 6). Prior to the entry of that order, Loubser filed a "Supplement Plaintiff Loubser's Motion to Compel Defendant Justice and Justice Law et. Al. to Comply with Plaintiff Loubser's First Request for Production of Documents and Things Defendant Courtney B. Justice and Justice Law et. al. and Corinna S. Montine." (DE 418)
In this "supplement" motion, Loubser acknowledges the receipt of 16,260 pages of documents in response to her request for the complete file maintained by Justice while serving as Loubser's attorney in her divorce proceeding. However, she first complains that Justice has not indicated which documents within this group the defendant intends to use at trial, as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(3)(C). However, this provision states that such disclosures must be made "at least 30 days before trial." Because no trial date has been set, this complaint is premature. See e.g. Saudi v. Valmet-Appleton, Inc. , 219 F.R.D. 128, 131-32 (E.D. Wis. 2003); Hernandez-Torres v. Intercontinental Trading, Inc. , 158 F.3d 43, 49 (1st Cir. 1998).
Loubser further seeks to compel production of financial statements, bank account information, tax returns, and similar information. This court has already rejected these requests as irrelevant on multiple occasions. (See Opinion Order, October 29, 2007, DE 425, pp. 14-15)
Finally, Loubser complains that Montine has failed to produce a series of documents apparently pertaining to Loubser's state court divorce proceeding. For instance, she seeks "all information and documents relating and/or pertaining to statements that Pala and Hoover will move stuff." (DE 418-1, p. 3) Loubser provides no further basis indicating the meaning or relevancy of the request or why there is any belief that Montine has responsive information beyond the 16,000 documents already provided from this law office. Accordingly, Loubser's motion to compel (DE 418) is DENIED.
The record from the state court divorce proceeding also is at issue for a second time. After this court denied Loubser's motion to compel the court reporter, Sondra Rumple, to provide tapes of these proceedings, Loubser served subpoenas on Judges Kepner and Thacker seeking these tapes. On the basis of this court's prior order, as well as the fact that there is no credible evidence that Loubser has been denied the same access to this record that any other citizen is afforded, the motion to quash filed by the movants Judges Kepner and Thacker (DE 483) is GRANTED.
In addition, these movants sought to strike the surreply filed without leave by the plaintiff in the course of briefing the movants' prior motion to quash (DE 515). Because this motion was subsequently granted in the movant's favor, the motion is DENIED AS MOOT.
In addition, the plaintiff filed a Notice of Request for Sanctions on November 27, 2007. In this notice, she stated that she is placing "Attorney George W. Loy on notice that she will . . . ask for Rule 11 sanctions against George W. Loy if he continues to threaten or intimidate the plaintiff from calling his clients as witnesses." Accordingly, the court construes this as a notice made pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(c)(1)(A) and not a motion for sanctions. The clerk is DIRECTED TO TERMINATE this docket entry as a pending motion. (DE 499). Finally, the plaintiff's motion to compel filed on November 5, 2007 (DE 432) was denied in this court's December 11, 2007 order. (See DE 529, p. 12) Accordingly, the clerk is DIRECTED TO TERMINATE this motion as well.
The defendants, Dennis Hoover, Alexander Pala, and William Weist, in their Motion for Sanctions and Relief in Connection With Plaintiff's Admitted Deliberate Non-Disclosure of Evidence Which She Claims Supports her Allegations of Conspiracy (DE 544), seek sanctions based on Loubser's failure to produce a series of letters written by her former husband during the course of the divorce proceeding. On December 19, 2007, during the course of her deposition, Loubser indicated that she considered these letters evidence of a conspiracy but that she did not intend to disclose the letters because she planned to use them for impeachment. At the deposition, the defendants' attorney stated that this was an inaccurate view of the federal rules. The following day, the defendants filed this motion seeking sanctions for the failure to disclose. In the meantime, Loubser, apparently under-standing that because she claimed the letters supported her conspiracy claim they were not being used "solely for impeachment" as described in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1)(B), provided the documents. ( See DE 550)
As sanctions for this conduct, the defendants sought an order barring the use of the letters or the immediate production of the letters, the ability to reconvene Loubser's deposition, and an extension to the summary judgment briefing deadlines. In light of Loubser's production of these letters and the court's review of this evidence, the motion is DENIED.
Finally, Loubser has filed a "renewed" motion to compel Pala to sign medical record release forms (DE 547). Accordingly, the court construes this as motion to reconsider its earlier decision denying this motion because Loubser had not shown that this request was properly made or relevant. The "renewed" motion offers no rationale that supports reconsideration of this decision. See Ahmed v. Ashcroft , 388 F.3d 247, 249 (7th Cir. 2004) (internal quotation omitted) (noting that this type of motion "is a request that the [Court] reexamine its decision in light of additional legal arguments, a change of law, or perhaps an argument or aspect of the case which was overlooked."). See also Frietsch v. Refco, Inc. , 56 F.3d 825, 828 (7th Cir. 1995) ("It is not the purpose of allowing motions for reconsideration to enable a party to complete presenting his case after the court has ruled against him. Were such a procedure to be countenanced, some lawsuits really might never end, rather than just seeming endless."); Dal Pozzo v. Basic Machinery Co., Inc. , 463 F.3d 609, 615 (7th Cir. 2006) ("Litigation must sometime come to an end, and the limit on Rule 59 motions advances that goal.").
It remains unclear on what basis Loubser contends that Pala's medical records are at issue. Loubser may be claiming that Pala received an inequitable share of marital property or support in the divorce based on this disability. To the extent such a claim seeks to realign the division of property in the divorce, its is not relevant to this matter. ( See Opinion and Order, October 29, 2007, DE 425, pp. 11-12)
Loubser also claims that the subject of Pala's medical condition was injected into the case because she was questioned on the subject at her own deposition, subsequent to the court's prior order. In response, Pala stated that the questions at the deposition regarded whether Loubser, who has accused numerous individuals of falsely testifying at the divorce proceedings that Pala was disabled, at that time herself testified at a Social Security hearing as to Pala's condition. Consequently, Pala is not raising his medical records or relying on their contents. Rather, he is seeking discovery regarding Loubser's state of mind when she testified at his disability hearing. There is nothing in these arguments that justifies revisiting the court's prior decision. In addition, because there is no indication that Pala has raised the contents of these records, he has not waived any privilege with respect to these records. Accordingly, the motion is DENIED.
For the foregoing reasons:
1. The Supplement Plaintiff Loubser's Motion to Compel filed by the plaintiff on October 25, 2007 (DE 418) is DENIED;
2. The Response to Motion to Quash Subpona [sic] to Sondra Rumple and Move for Order to Compel Production filed by the plaintiff on November 5, 2007 (DE 432) was DENIED in this court's December 11, 2007 order. Accordingly, the clerk is DIRECTED TO TERMINATE this as a pending motion;
3. The Motion to Quash or Modify Subpoenas filed by the movants Judges Rex W. Kepner and Robert W. Thacker on November 21, 2007 (DE 483) is GRANTED;
4. The Notice of Request for Sanctions filed by the plaintiff on November 27, 2007 (DE 499) is not a motion. Accoridngly, the clerk is DIRECTED TO TERMINATE this as a pending motion;
5. The Motion to Strike Surreply filed by the movants Judges Rex W. Kepner and Robert W. Thacker on December 6, 2007 (DE 515) is DENIED AS MOOT;
6. The Motion for Sanctions filed by the defendants, Dennis Hoover, Alexander Pala, and William Weist, on December 20, 2007 (DE 544) is DENIED; and
7. The Renewed Motion to Compel filed by the plaintiff on December 28, 2007 (DE 547) is DENIED.