The opinion of the court was delivered by: JOHN FACCIOLA, Magistrate Judge
In accordance with the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, the
following is, hereby, ORDERED:
1. Plaintiff shall, within ten days of the date of this Order,
provide to defendant the following documents:
a. March 12, 2003 Lightfoot Application to Boxley,
b. March 20, 2003 letter/document to Lightfoot from
c. April 3, 2003 letter from Graves to Lightfoot.
d. April 16, 2003 letter from Graves to Lightfoot.
e. April 30, 2003 letter from Graves to Lightfoot.
f. May 4, 2003 letter from Lightfoot to Graves.
g. Undated letter from Blackwell to Lightfoot
notifying him that his separation was effective May
h. April 7, 2004 letter from District of Columbia to
attorney Clair. i. February 20, 2004 letter from Valerie Jones to Mr.
j. May 3, 2004 letter from Kenneth Saunders, Director
of Office of Human Rights to attorney Clair.
k. May 11, 2004 letter from Kenneth Saunders to
Also within ten days of the date of this Order, plaintiff will
provide the court with a privilege log as to the following
a. May 16, 2003 certified mail grievance from
Lightfoot to Superintendent of Public Schools for the
District of Columbia.
b. February 20, 2004 letter from Jones to Lightfoot
or his representatives.
c. April 28, 2004 affidavit executed by Mr. Lightfoot
in the Office of Human Rights.
d. May (sic, should be March) 15, 2003 letter from
attorney Claire to Superintendent of Public School.
e. April 16, 2003 letter from attorney Clair to
f. May 5, 2003 letter from attorney Clair to Thomas
g. April 25, 2003 letter from attorney Clair to
h. May 11, 2004 letter from attorney Clair to Hyton
i. June 23, 2004 status report from attorney Clair to
Office of Human Rights.
j. August 2, 2004 letter from attorney Clair to Bobby
Within ten days of defendant's receipt of the privilege log,
defendant will supplement his original motion to compel, as
explained in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion.
Finally, within ten days of the date of this Order, defendant
will comply with the disclosure requirement of Local Civil Rule 7.1 or file a praecipe
indicating that this rule does not apply.
ORDERED that defendant's Motion to Compel Discovery [#23]
is GRANTED in part and STAYED in part.
SO ORDERED. MEMORANDUM OPINION
This case was referred to me for all purposes including trial.
Currently pending and ready for resolution is defendant's Motion
to Compel Discovery. For the reasons stated below, defendant's
motion will be granted in part and stayed in part.
This case arises out of an automobile accident that occurred on
October 31, 2003. James Lightfoot ("plaintiff") claims that at
the time the accident occurred, he was traveling northbound on
New York Avenue, N.W. in Washington, D.C. Plaintiff further
claims that when he slowed to turn right into the parking lot of
a McDonald's restaurant, Henry Rosskopf ("defendant"), who was
traveling northbound directly behind plaintiff, negligently ran
into the back of plaintiff's car.
As a result of this accident, plaintiff filed two lawsuits. The
first lawsuit, Civil Action 04-1059, the current action, was
filed against the other driver of the car. The second lawsuit,
Civil Action 04-1280, was filed against the District of Columbia,
plaintiff's former employer. In the motion currently before the