DOE et al v. BRUNSWICK SCHOOL DEPARTMENT et al

Filing 34

REPORT OF PRE-FILING CONFERENCE UNDER LOCAL RULE 56 By JUDGE D. BROCK HORNBY. (jib)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
JANE DOE, as mother and next
friend of her son, Jack Doe; AND
JANE DOE, individually; AND THE
MAINE HUMAN RIGHTS
COMMISSION,
PLAINTIFFS
V.

BRUNSWICK SCHOOL DEPARTMENT,
AND WALTER WALLACE,
DEFENDANTS

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL NO. 2:15-CV-257-DBH

REPORT OF PRE-FILING CONFERENCE UNDER LOCAL RULE 56
A Local Rule 56(h) pre-filing conference was held on June 30, 2016.
The plaintiff Jane Doe, individually, and as mother and next friend of her
son, brings civil rights claims against the Brunswick School Department and the
school principal Walter Wallace under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (2006 & Supp. 2015)
for unconstitutional sex and sexual orientation discrimination and free speech
retaliation; against the School Department under Title IX for sex discrimination
and retaliation for reporting about sex discrimination, see 20 U.S.C.A. § 1681
(2006 & Supp. 2015); and against the School Department under the Maine
Human Rights Act for sex and sexual orientation discrimination, see 5 M.R.S.A.
§ 4602 (2010 & Supp. 2015). The Maine Human Rights Commission previously
conducted an investigation and found reasonable grounds to believe that the
School Department committed unlawful discrimination. The Commission joins

the plaintiff’s claim under the Maine Human Rights Act.
§ 4612(4).

See 5 M.R.S.A.

The defendants raise a number of affirmative defenses in their

answer, but counsel for the defendants stated at the conference that the
defendants withdraw the sixth affirmative defense, which asserted that the
plaintiff Jane Doe and her minor child failed to adequately mitigate damages.
At the beginning of the conference, the parties requested a judicial
settlement conference before a decision on the defendants’ motion for summary
judgment is necessary. They anticipate that the judicial settlement conference
will take one full day. The parties agreed, however, that the defendants will still
file their motion for summary judgment, with a filing deadline of three business
days before the scheduled settlement conference.

We also discussed some

discovery issues that the parties have been having, and I allowed them, upon
joint request, to continue discovery until one week before the judicial settlement
conference.
I have spoken to Magistrate Judge Nivison, and he is willing to conduct
the settlement conference.

Accordingly, I endorse the following scheduling

deadlines proposed by the parties:
A judicial settlement conference will be conducted after
August 12, 2016. Magistrate Judge Nivison’s chambers
will arrange the exact date after conferring with counsel
and will issue instructions for providing in camera
settlement memoranda.
No later than one week before the judicial settlement
conference, the parties shall present to Magistrate
Judge Rich (who has thus far been handling the
discovery issues in this case) any remaining discovery
disputes.
2

Three business days before the judicial settlement
conference, the defendants shall file their motion for
summary judgment and supporting documents in
accordance with the limits proposed in their preconference filing memorandum.
Four weeks after the judicial settlement conference, the
plaintiffs shall file their responses, their opposing
statements of material fact, and any additional facts.
The page limit and additional factual statements for the
plaintiff Jane Doe shall be in accordance with the limits
proposed in her pre-conference filing memorandum.
Fourteen days after the plaintiffs file their responses,
the defendants shall file their reply.
SO ORDERED.
DATED THIS 1ST DAY OF JULY, 2016
/S/D. BROCK HORNBY
D. BROCK HORNBY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3