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

Page 1 of 5
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
CANDRICE 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, District Judge:
Pending before the Court is the Second Motion for Extension of Time to Complete
Plaintiff’s Deposition and Mediation filed by Defendant Protestant Memorial Medical
Center, Inc., d/b/a Memorial Hospital Belleville (“Defendant”) (Doc. 271), as well as
various other motions filed by Plaintiff Candrice Boyd (“Plaintiff”).
On January 6, 2026, after months of delays and avoidance tactics by Plaintiff, and
upon order of the Court, the Parties met at the East St. Louis Courthouse to conduct
Plaintiff’s deposition. As the deposition began, Defendant notes, Plaintiff was unable to
recall or provide meaningful answers to basic questions, including what medications she
had taken that morning, and the Parties ultimately had to seek guidance from Magistrate
Judge Gilbert C. Sison regarding their disputes. (Id.). Additionally, because the Parties
had to conduct the deposition at the Courthouse due to Plaintiff’s refusal to travel to
defense counsel’s office, the deposition concluded at 4:30 p.m. (Id.). As a result of these
circumstances, the time on the record totaled only four hours and 33 minutes. (Id.).
Case 3:23-cv-03961-NJR Document 273 Filed 01/22/26 Page 1 of 5 Page ID
#<pageID>

Page 2 of 5
Defendant now seeks an extension of the deadline to complete the remaining two
hours and 27 minutes of Plaintiff’s deposition, 1 as well as an additional seven hours of
deposition time. (Id.). Defendant asserts that the time it has left is insufficient to fairly
examine Plaintiff about the claims and allegations in her 142-page Second Amended
Complaint. (Doc. 125).
Plaintiff opposes the motion, arguing that defense counsel could have refreshed
her memory with her medication records and should not be allowed additional time
simply because they regret their chosen lines of questioning. (Doc. 272). She further
argues that she should not have to explain or give examples of the claims in her Second
Amended Complaint, and that the additional time requested by Defendant is not
proportional to the burden imposed on her. (Id.).
Under Rule 30(d)(1), unless otherwise stipulated or ordered by the court, a
deposition is limited to one day of seven hours. F ED. R. C IV. P. 30(d)(1). However, the
court must allow additional time if needed to fairly examine the deponent or if the
deponent, another person, or any other circumstance impedes or delays the examination.
Id. The Advisory Committee Notes provide several factors that a court might consider
when determining whether good cause exists for an extension of the seven-hour limit.
F ED. R. CIV. P. 30, Advisory Committee Note. These factors include, but are not limited
to: whether an interpreter is required; whether the examination will cover events
occurring over a long period of time; whether the witness will be questioned about
1 The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure set a default seven-hour time limit for depositions. FED . R. C IV. P.
30(d).
Case 3:23-cv-03961-NJR Document 273 Filed 01/22/26 Page 2 of 5 Page ID
#<pageID>

Page 3 of 5
numerous or lengthy documents and whether the witness was provided with copies in
advance; and whether multiple parties are examining the witness. Id. The purpose of the
rule allowing additional time is to ensure a fair examination of the deponent. Id.
Having considered the parties’ arguments and the relevant factors, the Court finds
that 	a 	four-hour 	extension 	is 	appropriate 	to 	fairly 	examine 	Plaintiff. 	Plaintiff
acknowledges that the events of this case span multiple years and involve extensive
medical treatment and numerous medical records. Additionally, although not mentioned
in the Advisory Committee Note to Rule 30, the Court finds it relevant that Plaintiff is
proceeding pro se and may require additional time to consider potential objections and to
answer questions.
For these reasons, Defendant’s motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
Defendant is granted an extension of time, until March 2, 2026, to complete the remaining
two hours and 27 minutes of Plaintiff’s deposition, plus an additional four hours, for a
total of six hours and 27 minutes. The mediation session shall occur within 30 days of the
completion of Plaintiff’s deposition.
Motions for Leave to Supplement
Plaintiff has filed various motions for leave to supplement the Second Amended
Complaint with new facts that arose after its filing. (Docs. 155, 157, 174, 179, 234, 242, 251).
The 	proposed 	supplements 	mostly 	relate 	to 	Plaintiff’s 	medical 	care, 	including
correspondence with her medical providers, but they also include additional acts of
retaliation that she attributes to Defendant’s interference with her care, and supplemental
declarations regarding surveillance. To her motions, Plaintiff has attached numerous
Case 3:23-cv-03961-NJR Document 273 Filed 01/22/26 Page 3 of 5 Page ID
#<pageID>

Page 4 of 5
exhibits that are allegedly relevant to her claims.
Under Rule 15(d), a court may permit a party to serve a supplemental pleading
setting out any transaction, occurrence, or event that happened after the date of the
pleading to be supplemented. F ED. R. C IV. P. 15(d). “[T]here is no absolute right to expand
the case in this way; the district court has substantial discretion either to permit or to deny
such a motion.” Chicago Reg’l Council of Carpenters v. Vill. of Schaumburg, 644 F.3d 353, 356
(7th Cir. 2011). In determining a motion to supplement under Rule 15(d), a court may
look to several factors including, but not limited to: the extent to which the original and
supplemental complaints are related; whether there is evidence of delay, bad faith or
dilatory motive on the part of the movant; whether the supplement would impose undue
prejudice upon an opposing party; and whether allowing supplementation would serve
the interests of judicial economy. United States v. Indiana, No. 296-CV-095, 2009 WL
3067087, at *4 (N.D. Ind. Sept. 18, 2009).
Having considered these factors, the Court denies Plaintiff’s motions. While the
supplemental exhibits might support Plaintiff’s claims, to allow Plaintiff to continually
supplement her Second Amended Complaint with every medical record or message from
her doctors that she believes is the result of Defendant’s interference with her medical
care would unduly prejudice Defendant and would not be in the interest of judicial
efficiency. Plaintiff may introduce the exhibits as evidence at trial, to the extent they are
relevant and admissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence. For these reasons, Plaintiff’s
motions (Docs. 155, 157, 174, 179, 234, 242, 251) are DENIED.
Case 3:23-cv-03961-NJR Document 273 Filed 01/22/26 Page 4 of 5 Page ID
#<pageID>

Page 5 of 5
Motion for Leave to File Limited Clarification
On October 22, 2025, Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Prosecution,
or, in the Alternative, for Sanctions. (Doc. 224). Plaintiff filed a response the following
day (Docs. 226, 227), and Defendant filed a reply on October 30, 2025 (Doc. 232). Plaintiff
then filed a sur-reply to Defendant’s reply, which was stricken pursuant to Local Rule
7.1(a)(4), which expressly prohibits the filing of sur-replies. Plaintiff then filed the instant
Motion for Leave to File Limited Clarification. (Doc. 243).
In her motion, Plaintiff cites Local Rule 7.1(c)(4), which she says requires advance
permission for any additional response to a reply. She then explains why good cause
exists for her to file a sur-reply. The problem is that there is no Local Rule 7.1(c)(4) in the
Southern District of Illinois. To the extent Plaintiff is referring to Local Rule 7.1(a)(4), it
states:
Reply briefs are not favored, shall not exceed five pages, and should be filed
only in exceptional circumstances. Under no circumstances will sur-reply
briefs be accepted. The parties are directed to review the individual case
management procedures of each presiding judge as they may relate to the
filing of replies.
SDIL-LR 7.1(a)(4).
Because sur-replies are not accepted under any circumstance, Plaintiff’s Motion
for Leave to File Limited Clarification (Doc. 243) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: 	January 22, 2026
____________________________
NANCY J. ROSENSTENGEL
United States District Judge
Case 3:23-cv-03961-NJR Document 273 Filed 01/22/26 Page 5 of 5 Page ID
#<pageID>