Boyd v. Protestant Memorial Medical Center, Inc., et al.

Page 1 of 4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
CANDRICE CELESTE BOYD,
Plaintiff,
v.
PROTESTANT MEMORIAL MEDICAL
CENTER, INC. d/b/a MEMORIAL
HOSPITAL BELLEVILLE,
Defendant.
Case No. 3:23-CV-3961-NJR
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
ROSENSTENGEL, Chief Judge:
Pending before the Court is the Motion for Protective Order and Request for
Scheduling Relief filed by Plaintiff Candrice Boyd. (Doc. 256). Boyd’s deposition is
currently scheduled for January 6, 2026, at the East St. Louis Courthouse. With her
motion, Boyd accuses defense counsel in this case of coordinating with defense counsel
in her separate workers’ compensation action to schedule her deposition one day before
an independent neuropsychological exam. She claims this constitutes oppression and
places an undue burden on her. She also claims that she cannot meaningfully prepare for
her 	deposition 	until Defendant, 	Protestant Memorial Medical Center, Inc. 	d/b/a
Memorial Hospital Belleville, produces outstanding discovery.
Boyd’s workers’ compensation case is entirely independent from this matter. If
Boyd feels she will not be rested and prepared for her neuropsychological exam following
her deposition on January 6, she can seek a continuance of the exam in that matter. Boyd
Case 3:23-cv-03961-NJR Document 258 Filed 11/26/25 Page 1 of 4 Page ID
#<pageID>

Page 2 of 4
has presented no evidence of a “coordinated legal effort” among defense counsel in this
case and her workers’ compensation case, other than the timing of emails she received.
That is not enough to demonstrate “oppressive conduct warranting judicial protection.”
Her motion is denied.
Moreover, there is no discovery that Defendant is required to turn over prior to
Boyd’s deposition. Defendant already answered Plaintiff’s First Set of Interrogatories and
Consolidated Requests for Production (see Doc. 228-2), and the Court stayed Defendant’s
deadline to respond to Boyd’s Second Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production
of Documents and her Renewed Motion to Compel (Docs. 238, 240). The Court’s ruling
means Defendant does not have to respond to these pleadings or produce any further
discovery at this time. And Boyd’s citation to non-binding case law purportedly
pertaining to the continuing duty to supplement under Rule 26(a)(1) and Rule 26(e) is
inapplicable when she propounded discovery under Rules 33 and 34.
The Court is also not persuaded by Boyd’s argument that a stay of discovery
“never authorizes withholding surveillance.” First, the Court reminds Boyd, yet again,
that this is an employment discrimination case. There is no claim regarding surveillance in
this matter. Second, the cases she cites as “Seventh Circuit authority” (1) are not Seventh
Circuit authority; and (2) do not say that “a stay never authorizes withholding
surveillance.” See Bickler v. Senior Lifestyle Corp., 266 F.R.D. 379 (D. Ariz. 2010), cited by
Plaintiff as Bickler v. Senior Lifestyle Corp., 266 F.R.D. 379 (N.D. Ill. 2010). Indeed, Plaintiff’s
second case citation does not exist at all, instead referring the Court to a 2006 Idaho Senate
Case 3:23-cv-03961-NJR Document 258 Filed 11/26/25 Page 2 of 4 Page ID
#<pageID>

Page 3 of 4
Bill. See 2006 WL 769440. 1
Boyd also states that the “stay does not allow Defendant to refuse to disclose
materials being sent to Dr. Fucetola” because these are “expert-related disclosures under
Rule 26(a)(2)(B).” But Dr. Fucetola has not been named as an expert in this case; in fact,
no expert disclosures have been made. Moreover, Dr. Fucetola is performing Boyd’s
neuropsychological exam, and as far as the Court can tell, her exam has no relevance to
this matter.
Finally, Boyd asserts that the stay does not permit unilateral scheduling that
causes oppression. But there is nothing oppressive about scheduling a deposition a day
before a completely separate medical examination, and Boyd specifically told Defendant
that she was available on January 6, 2026. (Doc. 257-1 at p. 2).
In sum, Boyd’s Motion for Protective Order and Request for Scheduling Relief
(Doc. 256) is DENIED. The Court ORDERS Boyd to appear for her deposition scheduled
for 10 a.m. on January 6, 2026, at the East St. Louis Courthouse. Failure to do so may
result in the dismissal of this action for want of prosecution.
The Court further ADMONISHES Boyd for citing to cases that do not exist or do
not stand for the proposition she claims. Boyd’s current motion is not the first example
of her use of inappropriate case citations, but the Court has been lenient in the past due
to her pro se status.
Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides, in relevant part:
1 The case citation provided by Boyd is Fleming v. Chicago Transit Authority, 2006 WL 769440 (N.D. Ill. 2006),
but that case was filed in 2007. Thus, there would be no citation on Westlaw beginning with 2006. The Court
will not search the docket of Fleming to figure out what Boyd is citing to, if such a reference even exists.
Case 3:23-cv-03961-NJR Document 258 Filed 11/26/25 Page 3 of 4 Page ID
#<pageID>

Page 4 of 4
(b) Representations to the Court. By presenting to the court a
pleading, written motion, or other paper—whether by signing,
filing, submitting, or later advocating it—an . . . unrepresented party
certifies that to the best of the person’s knowledge, information, and
belief, 	formed 	after 	an 	inquiry 	reasonable 	under 	the
circumstances: . . .
(2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted
by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending,
modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new
law; . . . .
F ED. R. C IV. P. 11(b) (italics added).
As a pro se litigant, Boyd is not excused from complying with the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure. See Pearle Vision, Inc. v. Room, 541 F.3d 751, 758 (7th Cir. 2008) (it is “well
established that pro se litigants are not excused from compliance with procedural rules”).
Further filings by Boyd that contain citations to non-existent cases or to cases that do not
stand for the proposition she claims, in violation of Rule 11(b), will result in sanctions
against her that may include the dismissal of this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: 	November 26, 2025
____________________________
NANCY J. ROSENSTENGEL
Chief U.S. District Judge
Case 3:23-cv-03961-NJR Document 258 Filed 11/26/25 Page 4 of 4 Page ID
#<pageID>