The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
EASTERN DIVISION
)
RYANNE PARKER, individually )
and on behalf of her minor )
daughter, N.P., )
)
Plaintiffs, )
)
v. ) No. 20-cv-1044-STA-tmp
)
WEST CARROLL SCHOOL DISTRICT, )
)
Defendant. )
)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT’S COUNSEL
TO SUBMIT WRITTEN TRANSCRIPT OF NOVEMBER 19, 2019 HEARING AND
MOTION TO HAVE VIDEO RECORDING OF HEARING SUBMITTED AS AN
EXHIBIT
Before the court are pro se Plaintiff Ryanne Parker’s Motion
to Compel Defendant’s Counsel to Submit Written Transcript of
November 19, 2019 Hearing as an Exhibit and Motion to Have Video
Recording of Hearing Submitted as an Exhibit, filed on November 25
and 30, 2020. (ECF Nos. 55-56.)1 Defendant West Carroll School
District responded to both motions on December 14, 2020. (ECF Nos.
58-59.) For following reasons, Parker’s motions are DENIED.
I. BACKGROUND
1Pursuant to Administrative Order No. 2013-05, this case has been
referred to the United States magistrate judge for management and
for all pretrial matters for determination or report and
recommendation, as appropriate.
Pro se Plaintiff Ryanne Parker and Defendant West Carroll
School District (“West Carroll”) have been litigating the case
that is presently before the court since January 23, 2020.2 (ECF
No. 3, at 8.) While the underlying facts behind this case are more
fully described in other orders by this court, the present dispute
centers around a single event that preceded the filing of this
lawsuit: a due process hearing in November 2019 hosted by West
Carroll. (ECF Nos. 55-56.) In particular, Parker is requesting
leave to submit a video recording of the hearing as evidence and
for this court to compel West Carroll to submit a written
transcript of the same. (ECF Nos. 55-56.) To support these
requests, Parker provided a copy of West Carroll’s “Section 504
and ADA Grievance Procedures,” which reads:
Instead of a formal written transcript produced by a
court reporter, the entire due process hearing will be
video recorded. The school system shall provide a copy
of the recording to the parent/guardian on request. . .
. If a parent/guardian appeals the decision of the
hearing officer to a court of competent jurisdiction,
the school system shall prepare a written transcript of
the hearing to be offered to the court as an exhibit.
(ECF No. 55, at 5.) According to Parker, the hearing contains “a
confession from an agent of the Defendants who stated that she did
not want [an extended school year] or any other services for NP,
2Parker initially named Dana Carey, Tammy Davis, and Dexter
Williams as additional co-defendants. Parker’s claims against
Carey, Davis, and Williams were all dismissed for failure to state
a claim. (ECF Nos. 32, 40.)
plaintiff, because of her mother Ryanne Parker, plaintiff pro se.”
(ECF No. 56.)
Discovery in this case is ongoing and Parker propounded a set
of interrogatories and requests for production on West Carroll
September 14, 2020. (ECF No. 46.) In West Carroll’s discovery
responses, it provided “video footage of a meeting with Plaintiff
in November 2019.” (ECF No. 58.) According to West Carroll, none
of these discovery requests directly pertained to a written
transcript of the November 2019 hearing. (ECF No. 58.)
II. ANALYSIS
Parker’s first motion seeks leave for her to submit as an
exhibit a video recording of the November 2019 hearing and her
second motion requests for this court to compel West Carroll to
submit a written transcript of the hearing as an exhibit. According
to Parker, the hearing “is an important part of factual evidence
that includes the testimony of agents from the West Carroll Special
School District” and West Carroll was obligated by its own rules
to prepare a written transcript of the hearing for the court.3 This
3The undersigned notes that Parker does not appear to be in
possession of a written transcript of the November 2019 hearing
and does not appear to have requested that West Carroll produce a
copy of the transcript in discovery. Because Parker’s motion for
this court to compel West Carroll to submit the transcript as an
exhibit is premature, the undersigned need not reach West Carroll’s
remaining arguments that the written transcript is not a proper
target of discovery. The court will address this issue should
Parker request West Carroll to produce the transcript and
subsequently file a motion to compel discovery.
case is not at a stage where the court can receive evidence. See,
e.g., Patrick v. Petroff, No. 1:16-cv-00945-AWI-MJS (PC), 2016 WL
7159243, at *8 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 8, 2016) (“At the pleading stage,
the Court must accept Plaintiff's allegations as true. Plaintiff
is not required to submit evidence in support of his contentions.
Parties may not file evidence with the Court until the course of
litigation brings the evidence into question (for example, on a
motion for summary judgment, at trial, or when requested by the
Court).”); Jameson v. Bailey, No. CIV S–10–0124 KJM EFB PS, 2011
WL 837115, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 9, 2011) (“As this case is still
in the pretrial stage, plaintiff may not enter documents into
evidence at this time.”); McCreary v. Malone, No. 3:10–cv–00126–
RCJ–VPC, 2010 WL 5464177, at *4 (D. Nev. Dec. 28, 2010) (“The
presentation of evidence is appropriate during litigation, such as
summary judgment or at trial, but not at the pleading stage.”);
Clemons v. Pastor, No. C10–5235 RJBKLS, 2010 WL 3033786, at *1
(W.D. Wash. July 29, 2010) (“Plaintiff seeks to submit unidentified
and unspecified evidence to be retained in the court's possession.
There are presently no pending motions. The court does not retain
evidence on behalf of the parties.”). Should this case reach trial
or be subject to a motion for summary judgment, Parker may seek to
enter evidence of the hearing at that time.4
4Additionally, Parker’s motions do not comply with Local Rule
7.2(a)(1)(B), which states:
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons above, Parker’s Motion to Compel Defendant’s
Counsel to Submit Written Transcript of November 19, 2019 Hearing
as an Exhibit and Motion to Have Video Recording of Hearing
Submitted as an Exhibit are DENIED without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Tu M. Pham__________________________
TU M. PHAM
Chief United States Magistrate Judge
All motions, including discovery motions but not
including motions pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12, 56, 59
and 60[,] shall be accompanied by a certificate of
counsel or the parties proceeding pro se affirming that,
after consultation between the parties to the
controversy, they are unable to reach an accord as to
all issues or that all other parties are in agreement
with the action requested by the motion. Failure to
attach an accompanying certificate of consultation may
be deemed good grounds for denying the motion.
L.R. 7.2(b)(2). As a pro se litigant, Parker is still bound by
both the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the local rules. See
Wallace v. Brown, No. 2:17-cv-02269, 2020 WL 4228310, at *3 (W.D.
Tenn. July 23, 2020) (citing Wells v. Brown, 891 F.2d 591, 594
(6th Cir. 1989)). While “district courts may liberally construe
the federal and local rules for pro se litigants, even pro se
litigants are obligated to follow these rules.” Greer v. Home
Realty Co. of Memphis Inc., No. 2:07-cv-2639, 2010 WL 6512339, at
*2 (W.D. Tenn. July 12, 2010) (quoting Whitfield v. Snyder, 263 F.
App’x 518, 521 (7th Cir. 2008)). Here, Parker did not attempt to
confer with West Carroll about the motions before filing them and,
consequently, did not certify that she complied with the rules in
either motion. Before filing any future motions, Parker “must
become familiar with, and follow, the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure and the Local Rules” in order to avoid having her motions
denied for being procedurally improper. Id.
December 23, 2020______________________
Date