# Doe v. Charlotte Mecklenburg Board of Education

> District Court, W.D. North Carolina · November 29, 2022

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10259148

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, W.D. North Carolina
- **Decided:** November 29, 2022
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10259148

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- explaining that the good-cause standard “focuses on the diligence of the party seeking leave to modify the scheduling order”

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
3:18-cv-00586-RJC-DSC

JANE DOE, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. )
) ORDER
CHARLOTTE MECKLENBURG BOARD OF )
EDUCATION and CITY OF CHARLOTTE, )
)
Defendants. )
)

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Jane Doe’s Motion to Limit Testimony (Doc. No.
211). That motion concerns certain documents that were produced by the Defendants after
discovery closed. Although Doe “reserves the right to use some or all of this evidence at trial,” she
asks the Court to bar the Defendants from offering testimony about the documents. Pl.’s Mot.
Limit Test. 1 n.1, Doc. No. 211. She alternatively seeks leave to conduct more depositions.
While the documents were produced late, the Defendants will not be prohibited from
offering testimony about them.1 It would be unfair to limit the Defendants’ ability to use the
documents while Doe is given free rein. And, more importantly, Doe does not explain how she
would be specifically prejudiced by any testimony that the Defendants might offer about the
documents. Rather, she tallies 1,832 documents and indiscriminately asserts that potential
witnesses’ possible testimony will be prejudicial to her case. Pl.’s Mem. Supp. 1–3, Doc. No. 211-
1. That vague assertion is insufficient. See Smith v. Lytle, 2021 WL 5237273, at *4 (W.D.N.C.

1 Doe’s request for exclusion is based solely on the lateness of the Defendants’ productions. She
does not invoke the Federal Rules of Evidence. At trial, the Court will consider evidentiary
objections to specific testimony.
Aug. 9, 2021) (declining to grant relief because the movant “fail[ed] to describe the basis for his
[mJotion with particularity,” rendering the motion “too vague and conclusory”). Besides, a
document can sometimes speak for itself, making testimony about the document relatively
unimportant. And any testimony about the documents should be tethered to and cabined by the
documents’ content, which Doe has had access to for months. Accordingly, Doe has not shown
prejudice sufficient to justify the wholesale exclusion she requests.
Additional depositions are not warranted. The Court may modify a scheduling order to
reopen discovery “only for good cause.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). The good-cause standard turns
mostly on the diligence of the party seeking the modification. See Smith, 2021 WL 5237273, at
*4: see also Dilmar Oil Co. v. Federated Mut. Ins. Co., 986 F. Supp. 959, 980 (D.S.C. 1997)
(explaining that the good-cause standard “focuses on the diligence of the party seeking leave to
modify the scheduling order”). Doe delayed in bringing her motion. The documents were produced
between February and May 2022. Pl.’s Mem. Supp. 2-3, Doc. No. 211-1. Yet Doe did not file her
motion until October 19, 2022. Pl.’s Mot. Limit Test., Doc. No. 211. She did not “adequately
explain this delay” or “demonstrate that [s]he exercised diligence.” Smith, 2021 WL 5237273, at
*4, And at this stage, allowing more depositions would prevent the timely prosecution of this case,
which was filed on November 1, 2018—over four years ago.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Doe’s Motion to Limit Testimony (Doc. No. 211)
is DENIED.

November 29, 2022

Otef$ 4 Cr Of
Robert J. Conrad, Jr. as
United States District Judge ee

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10259148. Public record. Not legal advice.