jennings response to motion to exclude pat summitt info

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE

AT KNOXVILLE

DEBORAH K. JENNINGS, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) No.: 3:12-cv-00507

) Reeves/Guyton

) JURY DEMAND

THE UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE, )

and Dave Hart, )

)

Defendants. )

______________________________________________________________________________

PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’

MOTIONS FOR PROTECTIVE ORDERS

______________________________________________________________________________

COMES NOW the Plaintiff, DEBORAH K. JENINGS, who would show unto this

Honorable Court, as follows:

1. RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER

TO BLOCK DISCOVERY REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S DISABILITY

RETALITATION CLAIMS. (Doc. 52).

The Plaintiff objects to Defendants’ Motion for a Protective Order #1 (Doc. 52), and she

respectfully states that Defendants cannot carry their burden to show good cause to block the

Plaintiff’s requested discovery regarding Plaintiff’s disability retaliation claims, and to forbid

Plaintiff’s counsel from even asking questions in depositions regarding relevant areas of inquiry.

Plaintiff would show unto this Honorable Court that she would be highly prejudiced if the

Court granted Defendants’ Motion to block Plaintiff’s discovery and to forbid Plaintiff’s counsel

from even asking questions, because her discovery requests are limited and targeted to obtain

relevant admissible evidence or are limited and targeted to be reasonably calculated to lead to the

discovery of relevant evidence regarding Plaintiff’s disability retaliation claims. Further, her

counsel should be allowed to ask questions in depositions regarding her disability retaliation

Case 3:12-cv-00507-PLR-HBG Document 58 Filed 07/03/14 of 4 PageID #: 860

2

claims. The Plaintiff is seeking discovery to show she had a reasonable and good faith belief that

she opposed unlawful actions and that Defendants regarded Coach Summitt as disabled. The

discovery requests also seek relevant evidence on the issues of causation, pretext, and to meet

Defendants’ defenses. If this Honorable Court grants the requested Protective Order, it would

place Plaintiff’s disability retaliation claims in a discovery coffin, and it would be the equivalent

of granting the death penalty to Plaintiff’s disability retaliation claims. Further, if this Honorable

Court grants the requested Motion, Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure would be

turned on its head.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff respectfully requests this Honorable Court to deny

Defendants’ Motion for a Protective Order (Doc. 52), and the Plaintiff respectfully motions this

Honorable Court, pursuant to Rule 37 of the Federal Rules for Civil Procedure, to compel

Defendants to provide the requested discovery attached hereto as Exhibits A and B, and pursuant

to Rule 26, to provide Plaintiff a Privilege Log for any items withheld on a claim of privilege.1

2. RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

#2 (Doc. 56) THAT AS A CONDITION OF THE PRODUCTION OF

ADMITTEDLY DISCOVERABLE EVIDENCE, A PROTECTIVE ORDER

MUST FIRST BE ENTERED.

The Defendants have now motioned this Honorable Court to enter a Protective order to

cover their discovery production and to cover other discovery in this case, they assert, to ensure

that Defendants get “a fair trial”. (Doc. 56, p. 1). The Defendants’ Motion is not supported by

any facts, just unsubstantiated and unfounded speculation. Moreover, as explained in Plaintiff’s

Memorandum, Defendants’ Motion is a classic example of “the pot calling the kettle black”.

In this case, the Defendants refused to produce numerous clearly discoverable

documents, emails, and electronic records in their other responses to Plaintiff’s First

1 For clarification, the Plaintiff is not seeking the items set forth in paragraph II of Exh. A, pp. 5-6, regarding the

Board of Trustees.


3

Interrogatories and Document Requests unless Plaintiff would first consent to the entry of a

Protective Order regarding said production. (See, Def’s Resps attached as Exh. C). Plaintiff

respectfully declined to consent to this as she did not believe it was proper or appropriate, and it

ran contrary to the very strong mandates of the Tennessee Public Records Act, Tenn. Code Ann.

§ 10-7-101).

Plaintiff respectfully submits Defendants cannot show good cause for the entry of the

requested Protective Order, and Plaintiff requests this Honorable Court to deny Defendants

Motion and to enter an Order compelling the Defendants to produce the documents, emails, and

electronic records they withheld (as indicated in attached Exh. C) without further delay, and to

produce a Privilege Log of any items withheld based on a privilege claim pursuant to Rule 26 of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Pursuant to Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure, the Plaintiff prays for appropriate sanctions and attorney’s fees.

3. Plaintiff’s Counsel attaches a Certification that he conferred with Defendants’

Counsel in good-faith to resolve Defendants’ objections as set forth above, but to no avail. (See,

attached Exh. D).

4. Plaintiff also attaches her Declaration as Exhibit E.

The Plaintiff files a Memorandum simultaneously herewith.

RESPECTFULLY submitted this 3rd

day of July, 2014.

BURKHALTER, RAYSON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.

s/David A. Burkhalter, II___________

David A. Burkhalter, II, BPR#004771

Attorney for Plaintiff

PO Box 2777

Knoxville, Tennessee 37901

(865) 524-4974


4

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and exact copy of the foregoing document was served upon

counsel of record by either the Court’s electronic mail system and/or by placing same in the

United States mail with proper postage affixed thereto this the 3rd

day of July, 2014.

s/David A. Burkhalter, II

David A. Burkhalter, II


jennings response to motion to exclude pat summitt info

Documents