WADE v. IUSM et al

Filing 105

ENTRY ON DEFENDANTS' 100 REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO FILE A SUR-REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, AND PLAINTIFF'S 104 MOTION FOR PRETRIAL PURGING OF HER IUSM EMPLOYEE FILE. Having reviewed the Defendants' ; proposed sur-reply, the Court finds it is appropriate and grants Defendants request for leave. (Filing No. 100 .) The Sur-reply at Filing No. 100-1 will be considered by the Court when ruling on the pending cross motions for summary judgment. I n her Motion, Ms. Wade asks the Court to order the Defendants to remove certain documents from her Indiana University School of Medicine employee file and modify the reason for her termination in her employee file. This request is one component of the relief that Ms. Wade has made in her Complaint, and entitlement to this relief is the subject of the parties' pending cross-motions for summary judgment. Therefore, the Court denies the Plaintiff's Motion for Pretrial Purging of Her IUSM Employee File ( Filing No. 104 ). This request will be resolved in the Court's forthcoming order on the cross-motions for summary judgment. Copy to Plaintiff via US Mail. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 6/12/2019. (NAD)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
PATRICIA ANN WADE,
Plaintiff,
v.
INDIANA UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF
MEDICINE, SHERYL ALLEN,
and ABBY KLEMSZ,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 1:16-cv-02256-TWP-MJD

ENTRY ON DEFENDANTS’ REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO FILE A SUR-REPLY IN
SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, AND
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRETRIAL PURGING OF HER IUSM EMPLOYEE FILE
This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ The Trustees of Indiana University
(“University”), Dr. Sheryl Allen, and Dr. Abigail Klemsz (collectively, “Defendants”) request for
leave to filed a sur-reply in support of their Motion for Summary Judgment [Dkt. 68]. (Dkt. 100).
Also pending is a Motion for Pretrial Purging of Her IUSM Employee File (Dkt. 104), filed by
Plaintiff Patricia Ann Wade (“Ms. Wade”). The Court addresses each motion in turn.
I. DISCUSSION
Regarding their Motion for leave to file a sur-reply, the Defendants assert that “Plaintiff
has submitted a new affidavit and fourteen additional exhibits, Defendants feel compelled to
address the issues presented by these new exhibits and new argument.” Having reviewed the
Defendants’ proposed sur-reply, the Court finds it is appropriate and grants Defendants request
for leave. (Filing No. 100.) The Sur-reply at Filing No. 100-1 will be considered by the Court
when ruling on the pending cross motions for summary judgment.
In her Motion, Ms. Wade asks the Court to order the Defendants to remove certain
documents from her Indiana University School of Medicine employee file and modify the reason

for her termination in her employee file. This request is one component of the relief that Ms. Wade
has made in her Complaint, and entitlement to this relief is the subject of the parties’ pending
cross-motions for summary judgment. Therefore, the Court denies the Plaintiff’s Motion for
Pretrial Purging of Her IUSM Employee File (Filing No. 104). This request will be resolved in the
Court’s forthcoming order on the cross-motions for summary judgment.
II. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, Defendants’ Request For Leave To File A Sur-Reply in
Support of Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Filing No. 100) is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s
Motion for Pretrial Purging of her IUSM Employee File is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
Date:

6/12/2019

Distribution:
Patricia Ann Wade
512 Grand View St.
Spencer, IN 47460-1000
James R. A. Dawson
TAFT STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER LLP
[e-mail]
Melissa A. Macchia
TAFT STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER LLP
[e-mail]
Michael C. Terrell
TAFT STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER LLP
[e-mail]

2