Pro-Se Litigant in Federal Court needs help/advice on FRCP Rule 65

What is the name of your state?
Ohio

Hello,

I am presently, and have been for a couple of years, involved in a Title VII SH/Retaliation case in Federal District Court as a Pro-Se Litigant.

I have not yet deposed a/thee "key witness" because I genuinely fear for the witness's job. Yes, I know all about Title VII, and how employers are prohibited from "retaliation", but it didn't stop them from doing it to me, and placing me in YEARS of litigation on my own). I do not want to place a would be, helpful witness in the same position ("hell") I am in now.

I want to be able to show this witness that they are "protected" from "retaliation", and the Defendant needs to be put on clear notice not to say, or do anything that could be interpreted as retaliation, once they Defendant becomes aware that I will seek to depose the witness. I have the "witness's" employee file, and there is ample justification for the sudden termination of the employee within that file INCLUDING a "final warning" in regards to events at the time of my termination, not to mention the "at-will employment" exemption blanket the/a employer has.

I believe that I need to in some way "request" a preliminary injunction, protecting the witness's employment. I'd like to be able to do it, and have it in place without giving the Defendant (advance) "Notice", where the Defendant can then excercise their power over their employee and "suggest" how unhappy they might be if the witness were to speak candidly. If I were to go through the normal pleading process, and filing a "Motion" for an injunction, it would self defeat the whole intent.

The question is, is how can I get what I think of as a "Protective Order" (I know its not that, its only an "Order" that would "Protect" the witness from retaliation), or Preliminary Injunction IN PLACE shielding the witness before that entire intent can be undermined by the Defendant/Witness's Employer? How do I address the Court, and with what?

Why would an injunction be any better at addressing the issue than the existing Federal Law? Makes no sense. Because you “think” deposing the witness can be a problem does not make it true. This is supposition on your part and I do not think the Court has anything to offer. If your witness is concerned they can just refuse to talk with you and they can remain silent if you elect to proceed. You can’t manipulate the witness into talking to suit your case with the empty promise of protection. Only the Mob on TV can do that

You can not depose a party in secret and then deny the defendant the right to know about it, to be present or to also depose the party. The defendant has the same rights as you. You may want to be very careful with that other individuals “employee file” unless it was given to you by the employee (who has a right to have it) or by the company.

Thanks for the reply....

1) The employee's file was obtained as it would be in any formal litigation, it was produced by the Defendant as a formal Discovery Response, to a formal Rule 34 Discovery Request by the Plaintiff.

2) I am not seeking to DEPOSE the witness in secret, I only want to have the witness with *EXPRESS* PROOF IN HAND that the Defendant cannot retaliate against the witness, just as the witness, "witnessed" when my employment was wrongfully/unlawfully terminated.

3) The reason that an injunction would be "better" than existing Federal Law, is because the fact my employment was wrongfully terminated in spite of the existing Law. Isn't that the purpose of an Injunction, to halt (temporarily) halt the exection of unlawful practice?

4) I am not wanting to "manipulate" a witness, unless the quest to unfettered access to HONEST TESTIMONY is considered to be manipulation.

In Section 8-III(A) of the EEOC's "Retaliation" document (available online), it states: "A temporary injunction also is appropriate if the respondent's retaliation will likely cause irreparable harm to the Commission's (Investigating party) ability to investigate the charging party's original charge of discrimination. For example, the retaliation may discourage others from providing testimony or from filing additional charges based on the same or other alleged unlawful acts"

I am asking, how do I resolve the Catch22 of acquiring this above referenced "temporary injunction" for the benefit of the witness, without "alerting" the offending/retalitory party as to where their retaliatory acts (coersion of an employee('s) testimony, while weilding control over that employees job security) will best be directed?

Rex pretty much summed up your issues. Where you have adequate remedy of law as you do (even if only technically), injunctive relief will not be granted.

You are already at a disadvantage in federal court as a pro se litigant without getting yourself all wrapped up trying to cover all your bases in all kinds of what-if scenarios. Presenting these types of matters to the court will only serve to damage whatever credibility you may have and ultimately sink your ship.