Taylor v. Dilday et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
SOUTHERN DIVISION
ROBERT M. TAYLOR, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
vs. 	) 	Case No. 6:26-cv-03022-MDH
)
DEPUTY JACKIE DILDAY et al., 	)
)
Defendants. 	)
ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Pro Se Motion for Reasonable Accommodations Under Title
II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.
(Doc. 11). The Defendants failed to file Suggestions in Opposition and the time to do so has
elapsed. Thus, the motion is now ripe for adjudication on the merits. For the reasons stated herein,
Plaintiff’s Pro Se Motion for Reasonable Accommodations Under Title II of the ADA and Section
504 of the Rehabilitation Act is DENIED as premature without prejudice.
Plaintiff states that he is a 70-year-old individual with documented physical and psychiatric
disabilities that substantially limit major life activities, including his ability to communicate
effectively in adversarial settings. (Doc. 11, page 2). Specifically, Plaintiff asserts he has been
diagnosed with conditions that include bipolar disorder with psychosis, degenerative disc disease,
and a speech impediment. (Doc. 11, page 3 and Doc. 11-1 page 1). Plaintiff asks this Court for
accommodations including: (1) directing that communications between the parties be primarily in
writing and that Defendants provide key discovery materials, including initial disclosures, in
advance of deadlines to allow for adequate review; (2) permitting Plaintiff to participate by
telephone or video conference in all non-evidentiary proceedings in this action, including
Case 6:26-cv-03022-MDH Document 18 Filed 04/27/26 Page 1 of 4

2
conferences and Alternative Dispute Resolution (“ADR”); and (3) affirming that Plaintiff’s trained
medical alert service dog will accompany him to all in-person proceedings in this case, including
depositions, hearings, and trial, and that Defendants shall not seek to exclude the dog except on
the narrow groups permitted by 28 C.F.R. § 35.136. (Doc. 11, pages 2-3). The Court will take each
of Plaintiff’s requests in turn.
I. 	Communications in Writing and Submissions in Advance of Deadlines
First, the request directing that communication between the parties be primarily in writing
would have this Court micromanaging how the parties choose to interact and conduct their own
case. Filings submitted to this Court must be electronically or physically mailed to the other party
and thus no order is necessary as to that element of communication. How the parties choose to
discuss matters that arise outside of any filings to the Court are discussions best left between the
parties without intervention by the Court. While the Court would encourage the parties to
communicate in a matter that is beneficial to all, this is a conversation best left outside the mandates
of the Court. Should there be a logistical impasse or problems that arise, either party may raise this
issue to the Court after fulfilling the criteria outlined in Local Rule 37.1.
Second, the request that Defendants provide key discovery materials in advance of
deadlines to allow adequate review would unnecessarily burden the Defendants and would
unnecessarily prolong the case. Plaintiff is still free to file a motion requesting a reasonable
extension of time to respond should the need arise, which the Court will fairly evaluate. However,
a blanket extension covering all key deadlines is not appropriate. For these reasons, Plaintiff’s Pro
Se Motion for Reasonable Accommodations to have Defendants communicate primarily in writing
Case 6:26-cv-03022-MDH Document 18 Filed 04/27/26 Page 2 of 4

3
and that Defendants provide key discovery materials in advance of deadlines is DENIED without
prejudice.
II. 	Participation by Video or Teleconference
Plaintiff next asks that he be permitted to participate by telephone or video conference in
all non-evidentiary proceedings in this action, including conferences and ADR. To the extent
Plaintiff seeks permission to appear via video or teleconference, his motion is premature. Plaintiff
is free to reraise his motion when any non-evidentiary proceeding in this action is scheduled and
the Court will evaluate the request at that time. To allow an advance blanket exemption for all non-
evidentiary proceedings is unnecessary. The Court rarely conducts non-evidentiary hearings which
require in person attendance. For this reason, Plaintiff’s Pro Se Motion for Reasonable
Accommodations to be permitted to participate by telephone or video conference in all non-
evidentiary proceedings in this action is DENIED without prejudice.
III. 	Plaintiff’s Service Animal
Lastly, Plaintiff asks this Court to allow his trained medical alert service dog to accompany
him to all in-person proceedings in this case, including depositions, hearings, and trial. For a case
to reach the point of an in-person hearing is rare in federal court. Plaintiff’s motion to allow his
service animal to attend any such hearing is premature at this time. However, the Court will allow
Plaintiff to reraise his motion at the time when an in-person hearing or trial is scheduled within
this case and will evaluate the motion at that time.
To the extent Plaintiff wishes to have his service animal in proceedings outside the Court,
such as depositions, he may confer with Defendants. If an impasse does arise, either party may
raise the issue to the Court after fulfilling the criteria outlined in Local Rule 37.1. For the reasons
Case 6:26-cv-03022-MDH Document 18 Filed 04/27/26 Page 3 of 4

4
stated, Plaintiff’s Pro Se Motion for Reasonable Accommodations to allow his trained medical
alert service dog to accompany him to all in-person proceedings in this case is DENIED without
prejudice.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated, Plaintiff’s Pro Se Motion for Reasonable Accommodations Under
Title II of the ADA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act is DENIED without prejudice.
Plaintiff may reraise his motions for an extension; participation via video or teleconference; or
have his service animal present by filing a motion once the need arises.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: April 27, 2026
/s/ Douglas Harpool______________
DOUGLAS HARPOOL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 6:26-cv-03022-MDH Document 18 Filed 04/27/26 Page 4 of 4