IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
MARTIESA SMITH,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
HARRIS HEALTH SYSTEM and
PRECIOUS ONYEWUENYI,
DEFENDANTS.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:21-CV-03134
JOINT DISCOVERY CASE MANAGEMENT PLAN
1. State where and when the parties held the meeting required by
Rule 26(f). Identify the counsel who attended for each party.
The parties conducted the Rule 26(f) conference on November 6, 2021 at 10:00
a.m. Smith attended pro se; Ebon Swofford and Michael D. Fritz attended on
behalf of Defendants.
2. List all related cases pending in any other state or federal court.
Identify the court and case number. State the relationship.
None.
3. Briefly describe what this case is about. Generally state the
claims, defenses, and threshold issues that each party will likely
assert.
In this case, Smith alleges that she experienced (i) a racial discrimination based
on a hostile work environment; (ii) age discrimination based on a hostile work
environment; and (iii) related retaliation.
Defendants assert several defenses that are threshold issues. First, Defendants
contend that Smith did not exhaust her administrative remedies, a mandatory
prerequisite to her lawsuit. Second, Ms. Onyebuenyi cannot be personally
liable for any of the claims asserted in this lawsuit. Third, Smith makes no
discrete allegations of age discrimination. Fourth, and more generally, Smith
does not plead facts sufficient to meet the Rule 8 plausibility standard with
respect to any of her claims.
2
4. Specify the basis for federal jurisdiction. Identify any parties
who disagree and the reasons.
The basis for federal jurisdiction is federal-question jurisdiction. No parties
disagree.
5. List any anticipated additional parties. Identify the party who
wishes to add them, briefly explain why, and indicate a date by
which to do so.
None.
6. List any anticipated interventions. Briefly explain why.
None.
7. Describe any class-action or collective-action issues. Provide the
proposed definition of the class. Identify and state generally the
basis for any opposition.
None.
8. State whether each party represents that it has completed its
Rule 26(a) initial disclosures. If not, indicate the date by which
each party will do so and describe arrangements in that respect.
Smith will complete her initial disclosures by November 19, 2021.
Defendants will complete their initial disclosures by November 19, 2021.
9. Apart from initial disclosures, specify other discovery served or
accomplished to date.
None.
10. Describe the proposed agreed discovery plan. At a minimum
include:
a. Responses to all the matters raised in Rule 26(f), including any
agreements reached concerning electronic discovery and any
disputed issues relating to electronic discovery.
3
No changes need to be made in the form, requirement, or timing for
disclosures as set forth in Rule 26(a) or in the scheduling order that the
Court has issued.
b. When and to whom the plaintiff anticipates it may send
interrogatories, whether the Rule 33(a) limit of twenty-five per
party should apply, and reason for any requested adjustment.
Smith anticipates serving interrogatories on Harris Health. Smith does
not intend to send more than 25.
c. When and to whom the defendant anticipates it may send
interrogatories, whether the Rule 33(a) limit of twenty-five per
party should apply, and reason for any requested adjustment.
Harris Health anticipates serving interrogatories to Smith. Harris Health
does not anticipate the need to serve more than 25 interrogatories.
d. Of whom and by when the plaintiff anticipates taking oral
depositions, whether the Rule 30(a)(2)(A) presumptive limit of ten
depositions per side should apply, and reasons for any requested
adjustment.
Smith anticipates taking the depositions of Precious Onyebuenyi,
Barbara Busby, Marguerite Adetunji, and Robin Williams. Smith does
not anticipate taking more than 10 depositions. Smith intends to take
these depositions by [●].
e. Of whom and by when the defendant anticipates taking oral
depositions, whether the Rule 30(a)(2)(A) presumptive limit of ten
depositions per side should apply, and reasons for any requested
adjustment.
At this time, Harris Health intends to depose Ms. Smith. Harris Health
does not anticipate the need for more than ten depositions. Harris
Health intends to take the deposition only after the Court has ruled on
the Motion to Dismiss.
f. When the plaintiff (or the party with the burden of proof on an
issue) can designate experts and provide Rule 26(a)(2)(B) reports,
and when the opposing party can designate responsive experts and
provide their reports.
4
Smith intends to designate experts in accordance with the deadline
established by the Court’s scheduling order.
g. List expert depositions the plaintiff (or the party with the burden of
proof on an issue) anticipates taking and their anticipated
completion date.
None.
h. List expert depositions the opposing party anticipates taking and
their anticipated completion date.
None, unless Smith designates experts on matters other than attorneys’
fees, in which case Harris Health would depose those experts.
11. State the date by which the parties can reasonably complete the
planned discovery.
October 18, 2022, as stated in the court’s scheduling order.
12. If the parties disagree on any part of the discovery plan, describe
the separate view and proposals of each party.
The parties have no disagreement with the scheduling order entered by
the Court.
13. Discuss the possibilities for a prompt settlement or resolution of
the case at your Rule 26(f) meeting. Identify such possibilities.
Describe what each party has done or agreed to do to bring
about a prompt resolution of this dispute.
As detailed in their Motion to Dismiss, Defendants respectfully submit
that numerous, unrebutted threshold issues require the dismissal of all of
Smith’s claims.
14. Counsel for each party must discuss with their client the
alternative dispute resolution techniques that are reasonably
suitable to this case. Identify such potential techniques. State
when the parties may effectively use any such technique.
Smith states that she is willing to mediate at the appropriate time.
Harris Health may be willing to submit to mediation only after close of
5
discovery and after dispositive motions are ruled upon. Consenting to
mediation and/or settlement requires approval by Harris Health’s Board
of Trustees.
15. A Magistrate Judge of this Court may now hear jury and
nonjury trials. Indicate the parties’ joint position on a trial
before a Magistrate Judge.
Defendants do not consent to a trial before a Magistrate Judge.
16. Identify any party that has made a jury demand and whether it
was timely.
Smith made a timely jury demand.
17. Specify the number of hours it will likely take to present the
evidence at trial in this case.
Smith believes it would take approximately 5 days for the parties to
present evidence at trial.
Defendants believe it would take no more than 3 days for the parties to
present evidence at trial.
18. List pending motions the Court could resolve at the initial
pretrial conference.
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is pending.
19. List other pending motions.
None.
20. List issues or matters that deserve attention of the Court at the
initial pretrial conference.
Defendants assert several defenses that are threshold issues. First, Defendants
contend that Smith did not exhaust her administrative remedies, a mandatory
prerequisite to her lawsuit. Second, Ms. Onyebuenyi cannot be personally
liable for any of the claims asserted in this lawsuit. Third, Smith makes no
discrete allegations of age discrimination. Fourth, and more generally, Smith
does not plead facts sufficient to meet the Rule 8 plausibility standard with
respect to any of her claims.
6
21. Complete and attach a proposed scheduling and docket control
order where necessary to suggest modifications to the Court’s
standard order. Clearly indicate any disagreements with
reasons in support of the requests made.
In this case, the Court has already issued a scheduling order. The parties have
no opposition to the scheduling order entered by the Court.
22. Certify that all parties have filed the Disclosure of Interested
Persons as directed in the Order for Conference and Disclosure
of Interested Persons, listing the date of filing for original and
any amendments.
Harris Health filed its disclosure of interested persons on October 21, 2021.
Smith intends to file her disclosure of interested person the week of November
8, 2021.
23. If the case involves an unincorporated entity as a party, such as
an LLC or LLP, state the citizenship of every member. As an
attachment to this joint filing, such party must file an affidavit
or declaration establishing citizenship of every member.
This case does not involve any such entities.
24. List the names, bar numbers, addresses, telephone numbers, and
e-mails of all counsel and unrepresented parties.
Martiesa Smith
1700 Baywood Dr Apt 505
Bay City TX, 77414
mardiee@yahoo.com
PLAINTIFF PRO SE
OFFICE OF CHRISTIAN MENEFEE
HARRIS COUNTY ATTORNEY
Michael D. Fritz
Assistant County Attorney
Texas Bar No.: 24083029
S.D. Tex ID No. 2440934
7
Michael.Fritz@harrishealth.org
4800 Fournace Place
Sixth Floor, East Wing
Bellaire, Texas 77401
(346) 426-0326 (telephone)
(713) 440-1389 (facsimile)
Attorney-in-Charge for Defendants
Harris Health System and Precious Onyebuenyi
Ebon Swofford
Deputy Division Director
Texas Bar No. 00792588
S.D. Tex. ID No. 423962
Ebon.Swofford@harrishealth.org
4800 Fournace Place
Sixth Floor, East Wing
Bellaire, Texas 77401
(346) 426-0325 (telephone)
(713) 440-1389 (facsimile)
Attorneys for Defendants Harris Health System
and Precious Onyebuenyi
AGREED:
_________________________ ____________
Plaintiff Pro Se Date
_________________________ ____________
Counsel for Defendants Date
At Legal writing experts, we would be happy to assist in preparing any legal document you need. We are international lawyers and attorneys with significant experience in legal drafting, Commercial-Corporate practice and consulting. In the last few years, we have successfully undertaken similar assignments for clients from different jurisdictions. If given this opportunity, The LegalPen will be able to prepare the legal document within the shortest time possible. You can send us your quick enquiry ( here )