Free Reply to Response to Motion - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :07-cv-00215-SLR Document 18 Filed O3/05/2008 Page 1 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
HARRIET SAVITCH, :
Plaintiff pro se, Case N0. 07-215 SLR
v.
MARTIN KIRK, individually and in
his official capacity as Code Enforcement :
Officer of the Department of Land Use :
of New Castle County, and NEW :
CASTLE COUNTY, :
Defendants. O
DEFENDANTS, MARTIN KIRK AND NEW CASTLE COUNTY’S, _
REPLY TO PLAINTIFF’S ANSWER TO THE DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO COMPEL
1. On April 20, 2007, Plaintiff filed a Complaint alleging that Defendants
violated her right to be free from an unlawful seizure under the Fourth Amendment of the
United States Constitution. In addition, Plaintiff claimed that the Defendants’ actions
caused her to be unlawfully detained and caused her to suffer mental anguish and
emotional distress. On August 20, 2007, Defendants were served with a copy of the
Plaintiff s Complaint.
2. On September 6, 2007, Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment
in response to Plaintiffs Complaint. On October 31, 2007, this Honorable Court denied
the Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, and ordered that all discovery be
completed on or before February 29, 2008.

Case 1:07-cv-00215-SLR Document 18 Filed O3/05/2008 Page 2 of 3
3. On February 21, 2008, Defendants’ filed a Motion to Compel, requesting
that this Honorable Court order the Plaintiff to reply to the Defendants’ discovery
requests within ten days, or in the alternative, prohibit the Plaintiff from the introduction
at trial of any evidence responsive to Defendants’ discovery requests.
4. On February 27, 2008, the Plaintiff filed what can best be construed as an
Answer to the Defendants’ Motion to Compel. In her Answer, Plaintiff requested
additional time to contact an attorney.
5. Plaintiffs Answer fails to present any outstanding circumstances that
prevented her from retaining legal counsel during the last ten months. ln fact, Plaintiff s
only excuse for not moving forward with prosecuting this matter or answering the
Defendant’s discovery requests is that the attorney’s she contacted are unwilling or
unable to take on the case.
6. Plaintiff filed this case on April 20, 2007, and had over ten months to
obtain counsel. Any additional time that is given to the Plaintiff would cause the
Defendants’ to suffer undue prejudice by having to continue to defend this suit.
7. On October 31, 2007, this Honorable Court ordered that the parties
complete all discovery by February 29, 2008. The Defendants have made every
reasonable attempt to contact the Plaintiff and comply with the Court’s Order.
8. Although the Defendants recognize that this Court has given pro se
plaintiffs leniency on matters, Plaintiff should not be given the leniency to disregard the
Court Rules or a Court Order. See Thompson v. T orget Stores, 501 F. Supp.2d 601, 603
(D. Del. 2007) (holding that a plaintiffs pro se status does not authorize the plaintiff to
disregard the rules of procedure).

Case 1:07-cv-00215-SLR Document 18 Filed O3/05/2008 Page 3 of 3
WHEREFORE, Defendants Martin Kirk and New Castle County respectfully
request that this Honorable Court enter an Order prohibiting Plaintiff from the
introduction at trial of any evidence responsive to Defendants’ discovery requests.
Respectfully submitted,
Harshal Purohit, Assistant County Attorney (#4593)
New Castle County Law Department
87 Reads Way
New Castle, DE 19720
(302) 395-5272
Attorney for New Castle County and Martin Kirk
Dated: March 5, 2008

Case 1 :07-cv-00215-SLR Document 18-2 Filed 03/05/2008 Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
HARRIET SAVITCH, :
Plaintiff pro se, Case No. 07-215 SLR
vi.
MARTIN KIRK, individually and in
his official capacity as Code Enforcement :
Officer of the Department of Land Use :
of New Castle County, and NEW :
CASTLE COUNTY, :
Defendants.
ORDER
AND NOW, TO WIT, the foregoing motion having been considered, it is hereby
ORDERED that Plaintiff is prohibited from the introduction at trial of any evidence
responsive to Defendants’ discovery requests.
Judge