Doe v. University of Kentucky
Filing
76
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: (1) 65 MOTION to Clarify is GRANTED. (2) Parties shall have 60 days from the date of this Memo Opinion & Order in which to engage in limited discovery. (3) W/in 15 days after the close of the limited discovery, file supplemental briefs, if desired. May not exceed 15 pages, exclusive of exhibits. (4) 60 SEALED MOTION is HELD IN ABEYANCE until the expiration of time limits set forth herein. (5) No extensions of time will be granted w/o good cause shown. Signed by Judge Joseph M. Hood on 8/10/2018.(SCD)cc: COR
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
CENTRAL DIVISION
LEXINGTON
JANE DOE,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
v.
UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY,
Defendant.
****
****
Case No. 5:15-cv-296-JMH
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER
****
****
This matter is before the Court upon Defendant’s Motion to
Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) [DE 60] and Plaintiff’s Motion
to Clarify [DE 65].
Both motions have been fully briefed.
The
Defendant attached to its Motion and memorandum fifteen extrinsic
documents to support its argument that Plaintiff was not protected
by Title IX due to her status as a Bluegrass Community and
Technical College (BCTC) student.
Plaintiff responded to the
substance of Defendant’s arguments in her reply, but also argued
in her Motion to Clarify that Defendant’s motion should be treated
as a Rule 56 motion because it included exhibits outside the
pleadings, and that she should be permitted to take discovery
related to Defendant’s arguments based on the fifteen exhibits
prior to a ruling on Defendant’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion, if the Court
intends to consider the exhibits.
1
Courts appear to be split on the reach of Title IX to nonstudents, and make the determination based, at least in part, on
the specific circumstances at issue.
See Armstrong v. James
Madison University, 2017 WL 2390234 *7, n. 14 (W.D.Va. Feb. 23,
2017)(Defendant argued the plaintiff was not protected by Title IX
because he was not a student, “but it is unclear whether this
argument is entirely correct.
Under Title IX, a covered ‘program
or activity’ includes ‘all of the operations of . . . a college,
university, or other postsecondary institution[.]’”);
but see
Lopez v. San Luis Valley, Bd. Of Co-op Educational Services, 977
F. Supp. 1422, 1425 (D. Colo. 1997)(Principal sued the Board of
Cooperative Educational Services for Title IX violations; Court
held that “Plaintiff clearly does not fit either of the first two
categories as she is not a student and was not attempting to garner
either participation in or the benefits of the BOCES program. . .
. Indeed, many courts, in dicta, have limited the range of proper
Title IX plaintiffs to students and program employees.”)
The Court agrees with the parties that Defendant’s motion
goes far beyond the limitations of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion by
presenting matters outside the pleadings and is therefore properly
construed as a Rule 56 motion.
outside
the
pleadings
in
a
“When a court considers matters
Rule
12(b)(6)
motion, Rule 12(d)
requires that the motion must be treated as one for summary
judgment
under
Rule
56.
A
district
2
court
may
convert
the
motion sua sponte.
with
great
rights.”
caution
This conversion, however, should be exercised
and
attention
to
the
parties'
procedural
Tackett v. M & G Polymers, USA, LLC, 561 F.3d 478, 487
(6th Cir. 2009)(internal citations and quotation marks omitted).
Because the issue of whether Plaintiff is protected by Title IX as
a BCTC student residing in the University of Kentucky’s dormitory
is potentially dispositive of this case, and because Defendant
asks the Court to consider numerous documents outside the pleadings
to make this determination, Plaintiff must be “given a reasonable
opportunity to present all the material that is pertinent to
[Defendant’s] motion.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(d).
It would be unjust
for the Court to consider Defendant’s exhibits without providing
Plaintiff the opportunity to obtain discovery and present her own
evidence regarding the relationship between Plaintiff, BCTC, and
the University of Kentucky.
Accordingly, and for the reasons stated herein, IT IS HEREBY
ORDERED as follows:
(1)
Plaintiff’s Motion to Clarify [DE 65] is GRANTED;
(2)
The parties shall have 60 days from the date of this
Memorandum Opinion and Order in which to engage in
limited discovery related to Defendant’s argument that
“because
the
plaintiff
was
never
a
student
at
the
University of Kentucky, she has not been deprived of
3
educational
opportunities
at
the
University
of
Kentucky.”
(3)
Within 15 days after the close of the limited discovery
period, the parties shall file supplemental briefs, if
desired.
The supplemental briefs may not exceed 15
pages, exclusive of exhibits.
(4)
Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss [DE 60] is hereby HELD IN
ABEYANCE until the expiration of the time limits set
forth herein.
(5)
No extensions of time will be granted without good cause
shown.
This the 10th day of August, 2018.
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?