United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Florence Division
Veronica G. Awkard, Plaintiff,
Sharon Rammelsberg; Saudra Lavon Herrmann; Sharri Una Rammelsberg; William Douglas Management, Inc.; and Other Unknown Individuals, Defendants.
FLORENCE, SOUTH CAROLINA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
February 27, 2019, the court conducted a detailed telephonic
hearing to discuss various discovery-related matters raised
by Plaintiff and Defendants. Appearing by telephone were
Plaintiff, Veronica G. Awkard (“Plaintiff” or
“Awkard”), who is a former practicing attorney
representing herself in this matter; Todd Earle Rigler,
counsel for Defendants Sharon Rammelsberg, Saudra Lavon
Herrmann, and Sharri Una Rammelsberg (collectively,
“Landlord Defendants”); and Henry Wilkins
Frampton, IV, counsel for Defendant William Douglas
Management, Inc. (“WDM”). This short order is intended
to memorialize in writing several rulings the undersigned
made from the bench during the hearing. In sum, the court
orders the following:
Counsel for Defendant WDM is to provide to the court copies
of all discovery requests and responses to same as to all
discovery propounded by Plaintiff or by any Defendant in this
matter. Regarding responses to requests for production,
copies of the produced documents themselves are not required;
a list of the produced documents (by Bates number, where
available) is sufficient.
Plaintiff will appear to complete her deposition to be
re-noticed for a location in Florence, South Carolina and
taken by a colleague of Mr. Rigler. Counsel for the Landlord
Defendants will coordinate with Plaintiff for a mutually
agreeable date for this deposition to take place, and it may
be videotaped. The court is to be advised when this
deposition has been completed. Accordingly, Plaintiff's
Objection to Deposition/Motion for Protective Order, ECF No.
232, is granted in part.
Plaintiff's Motion to Quash Subpoena for all Medical
Records, ECF No. 241, she objects to the subpoenas served by
counsel for Defendant WDM on the Baltimore VA Medical Center,
Charleston VA Medical Center, and Miami VA Healthcare System;
see ECF No. 241-1. As an initial matter, the
undersigned questions whether Plaintiff has standing to
object to subpoenas served on third parties. In any event, as
discussed on the record during the February 27, 2019
conference, the court orders that Defendant
resubmit the subpoenas but, rather than having responsive
documents be sent to Defendant, the subpoenaed parties
(Baltimore VA Medical Center, Charleston VA Medical Center,
and Miami VA Healthcare System) are ordered
to produce the requested documents to United States
Magistrate Judge Kaymani D. West, United States District
Court, 401 W. Evans Street, Florence, SC,
29501. Upon receipt of documents responsive to
the subpoenas, the undersigned will treat the documents as
confidential and will conduct an in camera review of
the documents so that the court may better understand some of
the issues raised by the parties. Based on this ruling, the
Motion to Quash, ECF No. 241, is denied without
prejudice to any party raising objections concerning the
documents at later date.
During the hearing, counsel for Defendants made an oral
motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 35 for
Plaintiff to submit to a mental examination based on the
results of a recent test that indicated Plaintiff may have
issues with cognition. Plaintiff readily agreed to submit to
such an examination. The undersigned finds good cause exists
for such an examination to take place and grants the
oral motion. Because Rule 35(2)(B) requires specification of
such an examination's details, counsel for Defendants is
to provide that detail to the court and to Plaintiff.
discovery is ongoing because of these issues amongst the
parties, the court continues to hold all deadlines in the
Amended Scheduling Order, ECF No. 189, in abeyance. A revised
scheduling order will be issued at a later date.
 G. Michael Smith, counsel for Myrtle
Beach Resort Master Homeowners Association Inc.
(“MBRMHOA”), was also available by telephone. As
MBRMHOA currently is not a party, Smith did not actively
participate in discussions concerning discovery.
 As the hearing was conducted on the
record, detailed discussion of these rulings is not provided
 Counsel for the party issuing the
subpoenas is to inform the subpoenaed parties of these
instructions. The issuing party is to bear any costs
associated with these productions and to address any