Rudolph v. Harrison Metropolitan Housing Authority et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
ISIS RUDOLPH, SR.,
Plaintiff,
v.
HARRISON METROPOLITAN
HOUSING AUTHORITY, et al.,
Defendants.
Civil Action 2:25-cv-757
Judge Algenon L. Marbley
Magistrate Judge Chelsey M. Vascura
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Reasonable Accommodations
and Extension of Time (ECF No. 45). Plaintiff’s Motion is GRANTED IN PART and
DENIED IN PART, as follows:
1. 	Designation of a single Defense representative for speaking and correspondence:
Because the case involves multiple Defendants, it will not always be possible for Defendants to
collectively designate a single representative for speaking on phone calls or hearings or for
written correspondence. The undersigned is unable to decide on the appropriate representatives
for all aspects of the case at this time.
2. 	Clear and structured communication, including advance identification of who will
be speaking at conferences, consolidated written communications where possible, and avoidance
of last-minute or fragmented notices: Again, the undersigned cannot designate who will speak at
conferences in advance. Nor can the Court require multiple defendants to consolidate their
communications. And it is not the Court’s practice to issue last-minute or fragmented notices.
Case: 2:25-cv-00757-ALM-CMV Doc #: 50 Filed: 01/22/26 Page: 1 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>

2
3. 	Extensions of time and procedural flexibility: Plaintiff may request extensions
from the Court on a case-by-case basis. In doing so, Plaintiff should make sure to solicit
Defendants’ consent to the extensions as provided by S.D. Ohio Civ. R. 7.3(a) prior to requesting
extensions from the Court. The Court expects that Defendants will agree to reasonable
extensions of time.
4. 	Advance notice of conferences and deadlines: Again, the Court’s standard
practice is to provide advance notice of conferences and deadlines. The Court expects
Defendants will work with Plaintiff to find mutually convenient times for depositions, and that
Defendants will provide at least 14 days’ notice in advance of depositions.
5. 	Written supplementation in lieu of or in addition to live participation: The
undersigned cannot issue a blanket ruling for all conferences and hearings in this case. That said,
with respect to conferences to resolve discovery disputes, all parties will be afforded an
opportunity to submit written position statements in advance of the conference.
6. 	Accommodation without adverse inference: The Court will not construe
Plaintiff’s use of accommodations as non-cooperation or delay.
During the preliminary pretrial conference on January 22, 2026, the undersigned also
discussed the use of generative artificial intelligence (such as ChatGPT or Gemini) (“AI”) in this
litigation. Plaintiff was advised that she will not be permitted to use generative AI in real time to
answer deposition questions.
As to using generative AI as part of drafting documents for submission to the Court, it is
hereby ORDERED that any party who uses generative AI to help generate the content of any
portion of a pleading, motion, brief, or other document must submit a declaration disclosing the
use of generative AI. The declaration shall be captioned “Disclosure of the Use of Generative
Case: 2:25-cv-00757-ALM-CMV Doc #: 50 Filed: 01/22/26 Page: 2 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>

3
AI.” The declaration must identify the content (by page, section, or paragraph number) which
was prepared with the assistance of generative AI and state the platform used (ChatGPT, Gemini,
etc.). In the declaration, the attorney or pro se litigant must certify that they have reviewed the
relevant source material and have verified that all submissions to the Court are accurate, and that
they have complied with their obligations under Rule 11(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure (which provides that by submitting a pleading, motion, brief, or other paper to the
Court, an attorney or pro se litigant certifies that their claims, defenses, and other legal
contentions are warranted by existing law and that their factual contentions have evidentiary
support).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Chelsey M. Vascura
CHELSEY M. VASCURA
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case: 2:25-cv-00757-ALM-CMV Doc #: 50 Filed: 01/22/26 Page: 3 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>