The opinion of the court was delivered by: C. Clifford Shirley, Jr. United States Magistrate Judge
The Court finds it necessary to address a multitude of improper filings and inappropriate communications it recently has received from the plaintiff in this case.
I. August 8, 2006 Filings
On August 8, 2006, the plaintiff filed a "Request for Admittals from Paul Summers" [Doc. 185] and a "Request for Admittals from Phil Bredesen" [Doc. 186]. These filings are in direct contravention of Rule 5(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which prohibits the filing of discovery requests until they are used in a Court proceeding or the Court orders their filing. As these discovery requests have not as yet been used in a Court proceeding, nor has the Court ordered their filing, these requests should not have been filed with the Court. Accordingly, the "Request for Admittals from Paul Summers" [Doc. 185] and the "Request for Admittals from Phil Bredesen" [Doc. 184]. shall be STRICKEN from the Court's file.
The plaintiff was permitted to contact the Court's chambers by email, for the limited purpose of sending an outline of the discovery issues he planned to raise at a discovery conference before the undersigned. Since that time, however, the plaintiff has sent multiple emails to the Court's administrative assistant, emails which are often incoherent and inappropriate in nature.
The plaintiff sent a total of five emails to the Court's administrative assistant on Sunday, August 6, 2006. The first email was sent at 12:22 a.m. and is addressed directly to the Court's administrative assistant. It was copied to defense counsel as well, and contains the following message:
When was that deposition supposed to be? I thought I had it written down. Anyways tired of asking Vandevate [sic] for a notice. Could you email me a copy of the order? Thought it would be in the mail, but just got the order to appear in Court this Saturday.
Basically it seems hard for the court to understand, I need an actually [sic] written notice before I start appearing somewhere. Lets' [sic] pretend to be professional. [A]t least be up to my standards. (Emphasis added).
The disparaging, sarcastic tone of this email is completely inappropriate. The plaintiff is essentially accusing the Court's administrative assistant of not being professional, at least not up to the "professional standards" of the plaintiff. The Court finds that the plaintiff's remarks are anything but professional, and the Court will not tolerate this kind of disparaging, sarcastic language from a litigant. The plaintiff is admonished from making such remarks to opposing counsel or the Court's staff in the future.
The second email, which was sent at 6:07 p.m., is entitled "Identity Theft" and was sent to the Court's administrative assistant and several other unknown recipients (who, by their email addresses, do not appear to have any connection whatsoever with this case). The email message states as follows:
Of course I'm having a hard time collecting records and there seems to [sic] single place I"m [sic] able to place a complaint. [A]nd [sic] State of Tennessee and Campbell County seem particularly inactive in responding and even hang up the phone.
Attached to this email is a forwarded email from the plaintiff to various recipients, including persons apparently affiliated with the Knoxville Police Department, the City of Berea, and the City of Richmond, Kentucky (again, not ...