DeBose v. USF Board of Trustees et al

RESPONSE in Opposition re Emergency MOTION to Continue Trial Date and For Additional Time for Trial

M.D. Fla.August 1, 2018

TPA 512453115v1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION ANGELA DEBOSE, Plaintiff, v. CASE NO. 8:15-cv-02787-EAK-AEP UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA BOARD OF TRUSTEES, and ELLUCIAN COMPANY, L.P., Defendants. / DEFENDANT USFBOT’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE 1. DeBose cannot show the good cause required by Local Rule 3.09(a) for the continuance she is requesting. See also Case Management and Scheduling Order at p. 2 ("Motions to amend pleading or a motion for continuance of any pretrial conference, hearing or trial filed after issuance of this Case Management and Scheduling Order are disfavored"); Josendis v. Wall to Wall Residence Repairs, Inc., 662 F.3d 1292, 1307 (11th Cir. 2011) ("a district court's decision to hold litigants to the clear terms of its scheduling orders is not an abuse of discretion"). 2. DeBose had ample time to complete discovery in this case, including a two and one-half month extension of the original discovery period, which defendant USFBOT did not oppose. During the discovery period, USFBOT conducted a single deposition, while DeBose conducted eight (8) depositions. DeBose never filed any motions to compel with respect to any of USFBOT's discovery responses. Case 8:15-cv-02787-EAK-AEP Document 299 Filed 08/01/18 Page 1 of 5 PageID 4735 2 TPA 512453115v1 3. Seven weeks after the close of the extended discovery period, DeBose filed Plaintiff’s Motion to Reopen Discovery for Limited Purposes and corresponding Memorandum of Law in Support. [Doc. 100]. The Magistrate Judge denied DeBose’s motion, stating: “Plaintiff failed to demonstrate excusable neglect for the failure to act prior to the expiration of the discovery deadline.” [Doc. 122]. 4. Moreover, DeBose has failed to comply with Local Rule 3.09(b), which provides that “failure to complete discovery procedures within the time established… shall not constitute cause for continuance unless such failure or inability is brought to the attention of the Court at least 60 days in advance of any scheduled trial date….” 5. DeBose also has attempted to circumvent the discovery cut-off in this case by filing two state court public records act cases and aggressively pursuing discovery in those actions relating to her claims in this case. This has prompted two different state court judges to instruct DeBose that she cannot use those state court proceedings to pursue discovery relating to her federal claims and to rule that USFBOT counsel was justified in instructing deponents not to answer deposition questions relating to her federal claims. 6. Similarly, DeBose's assertions of discovery misconduct in this case do not support the requested trial continuance. The Magistrate Judge has repeatedly rejected those well-worn and groundless assertions. [Docs. 86, 87, 103, 121, 144]. 7. DeBose has continued to pursue speculative conspiracy theories and meritless spoliation accusations despite repeated Court rulings rejecting those assertions. DeBose has continued to pepper this Court and the state court with Case 8:15-cv-02787-EAK-AEP Document 299 Filed 08/01/18 Page 2 of 5 PageID 4736 3 TPA 512453115v1 motions raising such assertions, while at the same time maintaining to USFBOT counsel that she did not have time to meet to prepare a pretrial stipulation and exchange witness lists and trial exhibits. 8. Finally, DeBose's attempt to rely upon the pendency of her petition for writ of mandamus to the Eleventh Circuit should be rejected. On May 31, 2018, the Eleventh Circuit denied DeBose's request for a writ of mandamus. As is her custom with regard to any Court ruling with which she does not agree, DeBose filed a motion for rehearing. However, given the Eleventh Circuit's and this Court's conclusion that DeBose's motion for recusal was based upon judicial, as opposed to extra-judicial, actions, it appears probable that the Eleventh Circuit will deny that motion prior to the September 10 trial date. 9. In short, DeBose cannot demonstrate the requisite good cause for a continuance of the trial date. Moreover, the relief sought by DeBose would only serve to tax the resources of the Court and USFBOT in dealing with DeBose's incessant filings and groundless accusations. Case 8:15-cv-02787-EAK-AEP Document 299 Filed 08/01/18 Page 3 of 5 PageID 4737 4 TPA 512453115v1 IV. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, defendant USFBOT respectfully requests that the Court deny Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion to Continue Trial and for Additional Time for Trial. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Richard C. McCrea, Jr. Richard C. McCrea, Jr. Florida Bar No. 351539 Email: mccrear@gtlaw.com Cayla McCrea Page Florida Bar No. 1003487 Email: pagec@gtlaw.com GREENBERG TRAURIG, P.A. 101 E. Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 1900 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 318-5700 Facsimile: (813) 318-5900 Attorneys for Defendant University of South Florida Board of Trustees CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on August 1, 2018, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court by using the CM/ECF system, which will send a notice of electronic filing to: Angela DeBose, Pro Se 1107 W. Kirby Street Tampa, FL 33604 Jeffrey B. Jones, Esquire Kimberly J. Doud, Esquire Nancy A. Byer, Esquire Littler Mendelson, P.C. Case 8:15-cv-02787-EAK-AEP Document 299 Filed 08/01/18 Page 4 of 5 PageID 4738 5 TPA 512453115v1 111 North Magnolia Avenue, Suite 1250 Orlando, FL 32801 /s/ Richard C. McCrea, Jr. Attorney Case 8:15-cv-02787-EAK-AEP Document 299 Filed 08/01/18 Page 5 of 5 PageID 4739