Opinion
Civil Action No. 3:03-CV-0492-K.
July 14, 2004
ORDER
In this case, Plaintiff sued Defendant for hostile work environment sexual harassment. Several motions are currently pending before the Court.
I. Background
Plaintiff Bridget Parson ("Parson") brought this case against Defendant Wilmer-Hutchins Independent School district ("WHISD") on March 6, 2003, alleging hostile work environment sexual harassment. WHISD was served on March 11, 2003, thus making its answer due on March 31, 2003. However, WHISD did not file its answer until April 15, 2003. Before WHISD had filed its answer, Parson requested that the Clerk of the Court enter a default. The Clerk complied, granting Parson's request for entry of default on April 7, 2003. However, on December 29, 2003, the Court granted WHISD's motion to set aside the Clerk's entry of default.
Parson appealed the Court's December 29, 2003 order to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which dismissed her appeal on the grounds that this Court's order was "neither final nor otherwise appealable." Accordingly, the Court has continued in its attempts to move this case towards an ultimate resolution. To that end, the Court entered its Scheduling Order in this case on June 30, 2004. Nevertheless, despite the Court's decision to set aside the Clerk's entry of default in this case, Parson continues to seek an entry of default judgment against WHISD, asking for $17,164,000 in damages in the process. Parson has filed a second appeal with the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, on the grounds that every order the Court has signed and entered in this case "disregards the default status of the Defendants."
II. Plaintiff's Pending Motions
Plaintiff has filed multiple motions which are currently pending before the Court. The Court rules as follows on the motions:
1. Plaintiff's "Motion to Have Fees Transferred From the First Appeal to the Second," filed on April 30, 2004 (Docket No. 57). This motion is DENIED.
2. Plaintiff's "Motion for Reconsideration of Order's (sic) Signed on April 11, 2004, April 19, 2004, and April 20, 2004," filed on April 30, 2004 (Docket No. 58). This motion is DENIED.
3. Plaintiff's Second "Motion for Reconsideration of Order's (sic) Signed on April 11, 2004, April 19, 2004, and April 20, 2004," filed on April 30, 2004; also filed on April 30, 2004 (Docket No. 59). This motion is DENIED.
4. Plaintiff's motion for a hearing on several of the motions dealt with above (Docket No. 61). This motion is DENIED.
5. Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, filed May 14, 2004 (Docket No. 65). This motion is DENIED.
6. Plaintiff's "Motion for Cassette Tape, Audio, or All Oral Recordings of Hearing Held on April 20, 2004," filed on May 19, 2004 (Docket No. 67). Plaintiff has cited no authority to the Court indicating that she is entitled to a recording of the hearing held on April 20, 2004, and the Court could find none. Additionally, the Court finds that the interests of justice do not require the Court to order its reporter to give any recording of the hearing to Parson. This motion is therefore DENIED.
7. Plaintiff's "Motion Correcting Transcript of Hearing Held on April 20, 2004 Taken by the Court Reporter, Mr. Randy Wilson," filed on May 19, 2004 (Docket No. 68). As the Court Reporter has corrected the error on the first page of the transcript of the April 20, 2004 hearing, this motion is DENIED as moot.
8. Plaintiff's "Motion for Reconsideration Plaintiff Response to Order Signed on May 07, 2004," filed on May 19, 2004 (Docket No. 69). This motion is DENIED.
9. Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions filed on May 20, 2004 (Docket No. 70). This motion is DENIED.
10. Plaintiff's Request for a Hearing filed on May 21, 2004 (Docket No. 71). This motion is DENIED.
11. Plaintiff's "Motion to Strike from the Record and Unfile Document Filed by Defendants `Affidavit in Fact,'" filed on May 25, 2004 (Docket No. 75). This motion is DENIED.
12. Plaintiff's "Motion to Supplement Correction of Transcript and Request for Cassette Tape, Audio, and All Oral Recordings at Hearing Held on April 20, 2004," filed on May 25, 2004 (Docket No. 76). In this motion, Plaintiff seeks to provide additional information to the Court regarding her motion to correct transcript (Docket No. 68). As the Court considered her supplement in deciding the motion to correct, this motion is GRANTED insofar as Plaintiff was allowed to supplement the motion to correct. In all other respects, the motion to supplement is DENIED.
13. Plaintiff's "Motion to Strike From the Record Unfile Defendants `Notice of Filing of Affidavit of Non-Appearance,' Filed on May 25, 2004, Sanctions," filed on June 1, 2004 (Docket No. 78). This motion is DENIED.
15. Plaintiff's "Motion to Strike from the Record and Unfile Document Filed by Defendants `Motion to Dismiss, Set Aside Clerk Entry of Default, Incorporated Memorandum,' Filed on November 10, 2003," filed on June 2, 2004 (Docket No. 79). As the Court has already ruled on Defendant's motion, Plaintiff's motion is DENIED.
16. Plaintiff's Motion for Final Judgment by Default, filed on June 3, 2004 (Docket No. 80). This motion is DENIED.
17. Plaintiff's "Motion to Strike From the Record and Unfile `Letter' Filed by Defendants `Non-Receipt of Personnel File' Dated May 26, 2004 to Plaintiff and Dated May 27, 2004 to Defendants Stamped `Received' by the Court June 01, 2004," filed on June 3, 2004 (Docket No. 81). This motion is DENIED.
18. Plaintiff's "Motion to Dismiss Defendant Late Answer to Summary Judgment, Strike and Unfile Document, [and] Sanctions Against Defendants," filed on June 10, 2004 (Docket No. 83). This motion is DENIED.
19. Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File a Supplement to the Appellate Record and Return all of Defendant's Documents, filed on June 10, 2004 (Docket No. 84). This motion is DENIED.
20. Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment filed on June 10, 2004 (Docket No. 85). Again, this motion is DENIED.
21. Plaintiff's second Motion for Default Judgment filed on June 10, 2004 (Docket No. 86). This motion is also DENIED.
22. Plaintiff's Motion for Hearing filed on June 10, 2004 (Docket No. 87). This motion is DENIED.
23. Plaintiff's Motion to Quash filed on June 18, 2004 (Docket No. 89). These motions are DENIED.
24. Plaintiff's "Motion Requesting Name of Attorney to Show Authority to Act," filed on June 18, 2004 (Docket No. 90). Both of Defendant's attorneys in this case have properly appeared before the Court and have authority to act on behalf of Defendant. Accordingly, this motion is DENIED.
25. Plaintiff's Motion to Strike and Motion for Sanctions filed on June 22, 2004 (Docket No. 92). This motion is DENIED.
26. Plaintiff's Amended Motion to Strike and Motion for Sanctions filed on June 23, 2004 (Docket No. 93). This motion is DENIED.
27. Plaintiff's Emergency Motion for Stay or Injunction Pending Appeal and Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration, filed on July 2, 2004 (Docket No. 97). This motion is DENIED.
28. Plaintiff's Motion for Leave of Court to Supplement the Record filed on July 2, 2004 (Docket No. 98). This motion is DENIED.
29. Plaintiff's Motion to Amend/Supplement the Record filed on July 6, 2004 (Docket No. 99). This motion is DENIED.
30. Plaintiff's Request for Summary Judgment and Judgment by Default filed on July 9, 2004 (Docket Nos. 101 and 103). These motions are DENIED.
31. Plaintiff's Motion to Strike filed on July 9, 2004 (Docket No. 102). This motion is DENIED.
A common theme running throughout the course of Parson's motions is that the Court should not enter any additional orders because (1) WHISD is in default status, and (2) Parson should be allowed to appeal her issues to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals before the Court requires her to adhere to any deadlines. As has been previously stated, however, the Court has set aside the Clerk's entry of default against WHISD. Additionally, in the interests of justice, the Court shall continue to administrate the progression of this case as it deems proper while Parson pursues her second interlocutory appeal in this action. Although Parson contends that the Court should not enforce the deadlines set out in the Scheduling Order signed on June 30, 2004, the Court has the power to control its docket as necessary.
III. Defendant's Motion for Protective Order
In addition to Parson's motions, Defendant filed a motion for protective order on June 21, 2004. Defendant's motion merely asks the Court to extend its deadline for responding to interrogatories and requests for production filed by the Plaintiff on May 21, 2004 to July 15, 2004. This request is reasonable, and Plaintiff has not shown that the extension would prejudice her in any way. Accordingly, Defendant's motion is GRANTED.