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.

Vaughan v. Foltz

United States District Court, E.D. North Carolina, Northern Division

April 16, 2018

SUSAN W. VAUGHAN, an individual Plaintiff,
v.
SHANNON FOLTZ an individual, SAMANTHA HURD an individual, KRISTEN HARRIS an individual, KATHLYN ROMM an individual, RAY MATUSKO an individual, STEPHANIE RYDER an individual, CHUCK LYCETT an individual, MELANIE CORPREW an individual,, JAY BURRIS an individual, DOES 1-10 individuals, MELISSA TURNAGE an individual, and KATHERINE MCCARRON, an individual. Defendants.[1]

          ORDER

          LOUISE W. FLANAGAN United States District Judge.

         This matter comes now before the court on plaintiff's motion for clarification of the court's October 27, 2017, order, which the court initially construed as a motion to amend, as noted in text order entered April 4, 2018. Upon further review, the court has determined this motion more accurately sounds as a motion for reconsideration. No good cause having been shown, said motion (DE 57) is DENIED.

         The matter comes before the court also for address of the case schedule. Pro se plaintiff, take note the court sets aside the clerk's letters to you prescribing deadlines for any response to the two summary judgment motions of record. (DE 64, 68). Plaintiff is accorded more time to make her responses to those motions as set forth herein.

         Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f), the parties were directed to submit separate reports and plans for the management of this action. After reviewing defendants' report and plan filed April 4, 2018, where plaintiff has filed no report and plan and the time to do so has expired, and considering the issues raised, the court orders the following:

         I. Discovery

         A. Initial disclosures pursuant to Rule 26(a)(1) are due on or before April 30, 2018.

         B. Discovery will be necessary on the following subjects only: 1) plaintiff's claim for alleged violations of her Fourth Amendment rights for the defendants' entry into her home and 2) plaintiff's claim pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment for lack of procedural due process and injury to reputation for her alleged placement on a list of individuals who have committed serious child abuse.

         C. All discovery shall be commenced or served in time to be completed by July 15, 2018.

         D. No party shall serve more than 25 interrogatories, including all discrete subparts, to any other party.[2] Responses are due 30 days after service of those interrogatories.

         E. No party shall serve more than 25 requests for admissions to any other party. Responses are due 30 days after service of those requests for admissions.

         F. There shall be no more than 10 depositions by plaintiff and 10 by defendants.

         G. Each deposition shall be limited to 7 hours, unless otherwise agreed by the parties.

         H. Supplementations of disclosures under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(e) shall be served at such times and under such circumstances as required by that rule.

         I. To avoid the filing of unnecessary motions, the court encourages the parties to utilize stipulations regarding discovery procedures. However, this does not apply to extensions of time that interfere with the deadlines to complete all discovery, ...


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.