IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE

AT KNOXVILLE

DEBORAH K. JENNINGS, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) No.: 3:12-cv-00507
) Reeves/Guyton
) JURY DEMAND
THE UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE, )
and Dave Hart, )
)
Defendants. )
______________________________________________________________________________

PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS
MOTIONS FOR PROTECTIVE ORDERS
______________________________________________________________________________

COMES NOW the Plaintiff, DEBORAH K. JENINGS, who would show unto this
Honorable Court, as follows:
1. RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER
TO BLOCK DISCOVERY REGARDING PLAINTIFFS DISABILITY
RETALITATION CLAIMS. (Doc. 52).

The Plaintiff objects to Defendants Motion for a Protective Order #1 (Doc. 52), and she
respectfully states that Defendants cannot carry their burden to show good cause to block the
Plaintiffs requested discovery regarding Plaintiffs disability retaliation claims, and to forbid
Plaintiffs counsel from even asking questions in depositions regarding relevant areas of inquiry.
Plaintiff would show unto this Honorable Court that she would be highly prejudiced if the
Court granted Defendants Motion to block Plaintiffs discovery and to forbid Plaintiffs counsel
from even asking questions, because her discovery requests are limited and targeted to obtain
relevant admissible evidence or are limited and targeted to be reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of relevant evidence regarding Plaintiffs disability retaliation claims. Further, her
counsel should be allowed to ask questions in depositions regarding her disability retaliation
Case 3:12-cv-00507-PLR-HBG Document 58 Filed 07/03/14 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 860
2

claims. The Plaintiff is seeking discovery to show she had a reasonable and good faith belief that
she opposed unlawful actions and that Defendants regarded Coach Summitt as disabled. The
discovery requests also seek relevant evidence on the issues of causation, pretext, and to meet
Defendants defenses. If this Honorable Court grants the requested Protective Order, it would
place Plaintiffs disability retaliation claims in a discovery coffin, and it would be the equivalent
of granting the death penalty to Plaintiffs disability retaliation claims. Further, if this Honorable
Court grants the requested Motion, Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure would be
turned on its head.
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff respectfully requests this Honorable Court to deny
Defendants Motion for a Protective Order (Doc. 52), and the Plaintiff respectfully motions this
Honorable Court, pursuant to Rule 37 of the Federal Rules for Civil Procedure, to compel
Defendants to provide the requested discovery attached hereto as Exhibits A and B, and pursuant
to Rule 26, to provide Plaintiff a Privilege Log for any items withheld on a claim of privilege.
1

2. RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
#2 (Doc. 56) THAT AS A CONDITION OF THE PRODUCTION OF
ADMITTEDLY DISCOVERABLE EVIDENCE, A PROTECTIVE ORDER
MUST FIRST BE ENTERED.

The Defendants have now motioned this Honorable Court to enter a Protective order to
cover their discovery production and to cover other discovery in this case, they assert, to ensure
that Defendants get a fair trial. (Doc. 56, p. 1). The Defendants Motion is not supported by
any facts, just unsubstantiated and unfounded speculation. Moreover, as explained in Plaintiffs
Memorandum, Defendants Motion is a classic example of the pot calling the kettle black.
In this case, the Defendants refused to produce numerous clearly discoverable
documents, emails, and electronic records in their other responses to Plaintiffs First

1
For clarification, the Plaintiff is not seeking the items set forth in paragraph II of Exh. A, pp. 5-6, regarding the
Board of Trustees.
Case 3:12-cv-00507-PLR-HBG Document 58 Filed 07/03/14 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 861
3

Interrogatories and Document Requests unless Plaintiff would first consent to the entry of a
Protective Order regarding said production. (See, Defs Resps attached as Exh. C). Plaintiff
respectfully declined to consent to this as she did not believe it was proper or appropriate, and it
ran contrary to the very strong mandates of the Tennessee Public Records Act, Tenn. Code Ann.
10-7-101).
Plaintiff respectfully submits Defendants cannot show good cause for the entry of the
requested Protective Order, and Plaintiff requests this Honorable Court to deny Defendants
Motion and to enter an Order compelling the Defendants to produce the documents, emails, and
electronic records they withheld (as indicated in attached Exh. C) without further delay, and to
produce a Privilege Log of any items withheld based on a privilege claim pursuant to Rule 26 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Pursuant to Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, the Plaintiff prays for appropriate sanctions and attorneys fees.
3. Plaintiffs Counsel attaches a Certification that he conferred with Defendants
Counsel in good-faith to resolve Defendants objections as set forth above, but to no avail. (See,
attached Exh. D).
4. Plaintiff also attaches her Declaration as Exhibit E.
The Plaintiff files a Memorandum simultaneously herewith.
RESPECTFULLY submitted this 3
rd
day of July, 2014.
BURKHALTER, RAYSON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
s/David A. Burkhalter, II___________
David A. Burkhalter, II, BPR#004771
Attorney for Plaintiff
PO Box 2777
Knoxville, Tennessee 37901
(865) 524-4974


Case 3:12-cv-00507-PLR-HBG Document 58 Filed 07/03/14 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 862
4


CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and exact copy of the foregoing document was served upon
counsel of record by either the Courts electronic mail system and/or by placing same in the
United States mail with proper postage affixed thereto this the 3
rd
day of July, 2014.

s/David A. Burkhalter, II
David A. Burkhalter, II
Case 3:12-cv-00507-PLR-HBG Document 58 Filed 07/03/14 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 863