The opinion of the court was delivered by: Royce C. Lamberth, United States District Judge
Now comes defendant, CCA of Tennessee's motion to compel discovery pursuant to Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff, Renita Walston Jackson, opposes this motion. Upon consideration of the motion , plaintiff's opposition , the reply , the entire record, and applicable law, the Court finds that defendant's motion  to compel will be GRANTED.
The plaintiff filed her pro se complaint in the Civil Division of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia on September 15, 2005. (Compl. [24-3] at 1.) Plaintiff alleges:
After going through [approximately] [two] years of discrimination (difference in treatment) and [h]arassment, I attempted to inform management verbally and in writing and due to actions by [several co-workers] that were beyond my control I was wrote up [r]epeatedly, harassed and ultimately [t]erminated wrongfully. Due to a . . . [d]ifference in treatment/[h]arassment, I have [s]ubesequently developed "Panic Attack Syndrome," a medical disorder due to stress.
(Compl. at 1.) Plaintiff essentially argues that CCA wrongfully denied her medical leave under the District of Columbia Family and Medical Leave Act (DCFMLA), discriminated against her when she became pregnant, and failed to accommodate her panic anxiety syndrome under the District of Columbia Human Rights Act. (See Pl.'s Mot.  for Recons. ¶ 4.)
On March 4, 2006, after plaintiff retained counsel, CCA received plaintiff's responses to their first set of interrogatories. (Def.'s Ex. 2 [24-4] at 1.) Plaintiff did not object to CCA's interrogatories. (Id.)
From April 21, 2006 thru November 14, 2006, plaintiff attempted unsuccessfully to have this Court remand this case to the Superior Court for the District of Columbia. (See Order .) Thereafter, plaintiff took no action to prosecute this case until the Court issued an order on January 29, 2007 for plaintiff to show cause why this case should not be dismissed for failure to file a report of a Local Rule 16.3 scheduling conference. (See Order .)
Plaintiff responded to the order to show cause on February 6, 2007. (See Pl.'s Resp.  at 1.) On May 9, 2007, this Court provided the plaintiff with a second opportunity to submit the Local Rule 16.3 report and she complied on June 4, 2007. (See Order ; Doc.  at 1.) Plaintiff then filed a motion to dismiss her claims for discrimination under the federal Americans with Disabilities Act and federal Family and Medical Leave Act which was granted on November 5, 2007. (See Order .)
Thereafter, CCA noticed plaintiff's deposition for November 29, 2007. (See Def.'s Ex. 4 [24-5] ¶ 3.) On November 27, 2007, counsel for Plaintiff informed counsel for CCA that plaintiff would not be available for her deposition. (Id.) On December 20, 2007, plaintiff's deposition was rescheduled to January 11, 2008 at 10:00 am. (Id. ¶ 4.) On January 11th, the deposition of the plaintiff commenced at 11:30 a.m. and adjourned at 2:23 p.m., due to plaintiff's childcare arrangements. (Def.'s Ex. 5 [24-6] at 1.) The deposition was to resume on January 25, 2008. (Id. at 33.)
On January 22, 2008, CCA served subpoenas duces tecum on the healthcare providers whom the plaintiff had either identified in her discovery responses or whose names were found in documents which she had produced. (See Def.'s Ex. 4 [24-5] ¶ 5.) CCA provided notice to plaintiff of the subpoenas duces tecum and her right to object. (Id. at 12-26.) CCA also served a subpoena duces tecum on Kelly Services, Inc., whom plaintiff had identified at her deposition as an employer for whom she worked after her employment with CCA terminated. (See Def.'s Ex. 6 [24-7].)
On January 24, 2008, defendant served a second request for production of documents and requests for admission on plaintiff. (Def.'s Ex. 4 [24-5] ¶ 5.) Shortly after receiving the subpoenas duces tecum, counsel for plaintiff informed CCA that she would be filing a motion to quash because plaintiff had not consented to her healthcare providers' disclosure of her medical records to CCA. (Id. at 6.) Counsel for plaintiff also informed CCA that plaintiff would not be attending the January 25th deposition because she was ill. (Id.) A motion to quash was never filed by counsel for plaintiff.
On February 6, 2008, CCA proposed a protective order which would have addressed plaintiff's concerns regarding confidentiality. (Def.'s Ex. 4 [24-5] ¶ 7.) Plaintiff never agreed to a protective order. (Id.) On March 2, 2008, CCA received responses to its second request for production, and requests for admissions. (See Def.'s Ex. 7 [24-8]; Def.'s Ex. 9 [24-10].) Plaintiff objected to providing additional information regarding her search for employment after her employment with CCA terminated and money which she allegedly borrowed from relatives on the grounds of "privilege and confidentiality." (See Def.'s Ex. 7 [24-8] at 3-4.) Plaintiff proceeded, however, to identify relatives and the amount of money which she allegedly was forced to borrow from them because of CCA. (Id.) Plaintiff also provided a list of personal effects that she claims she lost because of CCA' s conduct. (Id.) At 11:59 p.m. on March 2, 2008, counsel for plaintiff sent an email to the defendant in which she advised that she would be seeking a protective order and wanted CCA's agreement that it would not ask any questions relating to the documents that had been provided in response to the subpoenas duces tecum. (Def.'s Ex. 4 [24-5] ¶ 9; Def.'s Ex. F. [24-5-F].)
Prior to the commencement of the deposition the next morning, counsel were unable to resolve this discovery issue. Consequently, the parties contacted this Court via telephone to advise that there was an ongoing discovery dispute. The parties were directed to continue as far as possible with the ...