Coleman v. Minneapolis Public Schools

Background

Daniel Coleman, who represented himself, alleged that Minneapolis Public Schools terminated his employment in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Minnesota Statutes § 179A.06. He alleged that the District failed to accommodate his asthma and retaliated against him after he sought an accommodation. He also alleged retaliation connected to an email his mother sent to the Minnesota Department of Education Commissioner about a student having a gun at Bryn Mawr School, and claimed that his rights under the Public Employee Labor Relations Act were violated.

The January 9, 2020 amended scheduling order set May 29, 2020 as the deadline for fact discovery, including fact depositions. It set June 30, 2020 as the deadline for expert disclosures and August 31, 2020 as the deadline for expert discovery. Coleman obtained twelve subpoenas in late June, July, and August 2020 and served them after the fact-discovery deadline. He cited the COVID-19 pandemic, difficulties obtaining and serving subpoenas, a car accident, a period of self-quarantine, and his misunderstanding of the scheduling order.

Motion to Extend Discovery

The court denied Coleman’s Motion to Extend Time to Complete Fact Discovery. Under the scheduling rules, a party seeking to change a deadline after it passed had to show extraordinary circumstances. The court found that Coleman had known by April 21, 2020 that the District would not agree to an extension, but did not seek court relief until after the May 29 deadline. The court also found that he had not explained why the District’s document-production issues, his car accident, his self-quarantine, or the pandemic prevented him from filing an extension motion before the deadline.

The court separately concluded that Coleman had not shown good cause under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 or the local rules. The court reasoned that he could have issued subpoenas for depositions to occur after the District’s March 30 document-production deadline but before May 29. It also found his explanations about obtaining and serving subpoenas insufficient. Because the court found no good cause, it did not need to consider prejudice to the District. It further stated that, even if it considered the issue, Coleman had not shown excusable neglect for the delay.

Protective Order and Subpoenas

The District’s Motion to Quash Subpoenas and for a Protective Order was granted in part insofar as it sought a protective order, and denied in part insofar as it sought an order quashing the subpoenas. The court construed the District’s request concerning the subpoenas as a request for a protective order requiring Coleman to withdraw them. It found good cause for protection because requiring current and former District employees to appear for depositions after fact discovery closed would burden the District and the subpoenaed individuals.

The court deemed withdrawn the twelve subpoenas Coleman served in July and August 2020. It also ordered that Coleman may not serve any other discovery in the case, including document requests, interrogatories, requests for admission, deposition notices, or subpoenas. The court specifically included the subpoenas directed to Kevin Baker and Candra Bennett, whom Coleman described as expert witnesses, because Coleman had not provided the required expert disclosures by the deadline.

Sanctions and Disposition

The District’s request for sanctions was denied. The court found that Coleman’s efforts to pursue the depositions did not amount to willful disobedience of a scheduling order. It also found that, considering his self-represented status, the pandemic, and the parties’ discussions about document production, his conduct was substantially justified.

The order therefore denied Coleman’s motion to extend fact discovery; granted in part and denied in part the District’s motion to quash subpoenas and for a protective order; deemed the twelve subpoenas withdrawn; barred Coleman from serving additional discovery; and denied the District’s request for sanctions. The order did not decide whether Coleman’s employment-related claims were legally valid.