Vaughan v. Foltz, et al

Filing 131

ORDER denying 127 Motion to Strike DSS Defendants' Exhibits Containing Allegations On Which Plaintiff Was Denied Opportunity To Be Heard and To Allow Plaintiff's Exhibits As Evidence. Signed by District Judge Louise Wood Flanagan on 9/5/2018. (Collins, S.)

FILED
JN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

AUG 3 1 2018

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

PETER A. MOORE(jJR., CLERK
O'S DISTRIC~ RT, EDNC

~y

NORTHERN DIVISION

, 1b < DEPCL.K

No. 2:16-CV-61-FL
SUSAN W. VAUGHAN
PLAINTIFF,

v

SHANNON FOLTZ, et al
DEFENDANTS

)
)

)

)
)

MOTION TO STRIKE
Motion DENIED. 
DSS DEFENDANTS'
5th
September 18
EXHIBITS CONTAINING
This the ____ day of ___________, 20___. 
ALLEGATIONS ON WHICH
/s/Louise W. Flanagan, U.S. District Judge 
PLAINTIFF WAS DENIED
OPPORTUNITY to be HEARD
and to Allow Plaintiff's Exhibits as
Evidence

**********************************************************************************
COMES NOW Plaintiff Susan Vaughan requesting, pursuant to Local Rule and 7 .1 (a), that
the Court Strike from the record Defendants' Exhibit 8 in part containing the petition
allegations. In support of her request, Plaintiff states the following:
1. The allegations are either false, distorted, fabricated, based upon unreliable witness and/or
irrelevant to the legal definitions of either Neglect Abuse or Dependency.
2. All but one or two allegations stated on the Currituck Petition were carried over, verbatim
from Dare County after Plaintiff was FOUR TIMES denied her constitutional and statutory right
to be heard regarding those allegations, all of which she could have challenged if given the
opportunity.
3. Plaintiff had filed a Motion in state district court to strike all the testimony that arose out of
those hearings that violated Plaintiff right to respond to said allegations.
4. Before repeating Dare DSS allegations and adding more false allegations of their own, no
Currituck Caseworker ever conducted a face-to-face or any investigation involving Plaintiff, as
required by lOA N.C. Admin. Code 70A.0106(f) (2007), cited in Plaintiff's RESPONSE TO
DSS DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT.

5. Currituck DSS agents had no first-hand knowledge of any of the allegations they made in
regard to Plaintiff, who they named as the only respondent to the Currituck case and accused her
maliciously of "serious neglect," never providing any evidence supporting their accusations.
6. The allegations are untrue and they continue to stigmatize and harm Plaintiff's reputation.
7. It is contrary to justice to present allegations, to which Plaintiff was denied her due process
right to challenge as evidence in this case.
Therefore Plaintiff respectfully requests that Defendants Exhibit 8, as noted above be
stricken from the record, as well as any continued derogatory remarks that Plaintiff has sown
confusion, muddied the waters or in any way caused the Court's and Defendants' misstatement
of her claims regarding the RIL.
This the 29tti day of August, 2018

Susan Vaughan, 613 Fifth Avenu , nit 1, Greensboro, NC 27405, 252-305-9992,
[e-mail]

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that the foregoing Motion to Strike was mailed to Eastern District Court in New Bern,
NC this day via US Postal Service and copies were also mailed this day, via US Postal Service, to
Parties and/or Parties' Counsel at the addresses listed below.·
Officers Mike Sudduth &
Carl White
c/o Kill Devil Hills Police Dept
102 Town Hall Dr.·
Kill Devil Hills, NC 27948

Christopher J. Geis
Womble Bond Dickinson
One West Fourth St.
Winston-Salem, NC 27101

Josh Stein
Kathryn Shields
NCDOJ
POBox629
Raleigh, NC 27602

This the 29th day of August, 2018

u.

Susan Vaughan, 613 Fi
[e-mail]

venue, Unit 1, Greensboro, NC 27405, 252-305-9992,

2