Vaughan v. Foltz, et al
CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER AND ORDER denying 57 Motion for Clarification and to Amend the Complaint. The parties are reminded to read the order in its entirety for critical deadlines and information. Signed by District Judge Louise Wood Flanagan on 4/16/2018.(A certified copy of this order was sent via US mail to Susan W. Vaughan, 613 Fifth Ave, Apt 1, Greensboro, NC 27405.) (Collins, S.)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
SUSAN W. VAUGHAN, an individual
SHANNON FOLTZ an individual,
SAMANTHA HURD an individual,
KRISTEN HARRIS an individual,
KATHLYN ROMM an individual,
RAY MATUSKO an individual,
STEPHANIE RYDER an individual,
CHUCK LYCETT an individual,
MELANIE CORPREW an individual, ,
JAY BURRIS an individual, DOES 1-10
individuals, MELISSA TURNAGE an
individual, and KATHERINE
MCCARRON, an individual.
This matter comes now before the court on plaintiff’s motion for clarification of the court’s
October 27, 2017, order, which the court initially construed as a motion to amend, as noted in text
order entered April 4, 2018. Upon further review, the court has determined this motion more
accurately sounds as a motion for reconsideration. No good cause having been shown, said motion
(DE 57) is DENIED.
The matter comes before the court also for address of the case schedule. Pro se plaintiff,
take note the court sets aside the clerk’s letters to you prescribing deadlines for any response to
The court constructively amends the caption to reflect the dismissal of previously-named defendants.
the two summary judgment motions of record. (DE 64, 68). Plaintiff is accorded more time to
make her responses to those motions as set forth herein.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f), the parties were directed to submit
separate reports and plans for the management of this action. After reviewing defendants’ report
and plan filed April 4, 2018, where plaintiff has filed no report and plan and the time to do so has
expired, and considering the issues raised, the court orders the following:
Initial disclosures pursuant to Rule 26(a)(1) are due on or before April 30, 2018.
Discovery will be necessary on the following subjects only: 1) plaintiff’s claim for
alleged violations of her Fourth Amendment rights for the defendants’ entry into her
home and 2) plaintiff’s claim pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment for lack of
procedural due process and injury to reputation for her alleged placement on a list
of individuals who have committed serious child abuse.
All discovery shall be commenced or served in time to be completed by July 15,
No party shall serve more than 25 interrogatories, including all discrete subparts, to
any other party.2 Responses are due 30 days after service of those interrogatories.
No party shall serve more than 25 requests for admissions to any other party.
Responses are due 30 days after service of those requests for admissions.
There shall be no more than 10 depositions by plaintiff and 10 by defendants.
For the purposes of this order, plaintiff is one party and defendants consist of two parties: first, defendants
Shannon Foltz, Samantha Hurd, Kristen Harris, Kathlyn Romm, Stephanie Ryder, Chuck Lycett, Melanie Corprew, Jay
Burrus, Melissa Turnage, and Katherine McCarron (collectively, “DSS defendants”), and, second, defendant Ray
Each deposition shall be limited to 7 hours, unless otherwise agreed by the parties.
Supplementations of disclosures under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(e) shall
be served at such times and under such circumstances as required by that rule.
To avoid the filing of unnecessary motions, the court encourages the parties to utilize
stipulations regarding discovery procedures. However, this does not apply to
extensions of time that interfere with the deadlines to complete all discovery, for the
briefing or hearing of a motion, or for trial. See FED. R. CIV. P. 29.
Discovery in this case may be governed by a protective order. If the parties disagree
concerning the need for, and/or the scope or form of, a protective order, the party or
parties seeking such an order shall file an appropriate motion and supporting
memorandum. If the parties agree concerning the need for and scope and form of a
protective order, their counsel shall confer and then submit a jointly proposed
protective order as soon as is practicable.
A jointly proposed protective order shall include, in the first paragraph, a
concise but sufficiently specific recitation of the particular facts in this case
that would provide the court with an adequate basis upon which to make the
required finding of good cause for issuance of the protective order pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c).
Any proposed protective order shall set out the procedure for filing under
seal confidential documents, things, and/or information, pursuant to the
requirements of Stone v. University of Maryland Medical System Corp., 855
F.2d 178, 180-181 (4th Cir. 1988). Specifically, a proposed protective order
shall include the following language: “Each time a party seeks to file under
seal confidential documents, things, and/or information, said party shall
accompany the request with a motion to seal and a supporting memorandum
of law specifying (a) the exact documents, things, and/or information, or
portions thereof, for which filing under seal is requested; (b) where it is
necessary for the court to determine the source of the public’s right to access
before a request to seal may be evaluated, whether any such request to seal
seeks to overcome the common law or the First Amendment presumption to
access; (c) the specific qualities of the material at issue which justify sealing
such material, taking into account the balance of competing interests in
access; (d) the reasons why alternatives to sealing are inadequate; and, (e)
whether there is consent to the motion. Finally, in addition to the motion and
supporting memorandum, said party must set out such findings in a proposed
order to seal for the court.”
A proposed protective order also shall include the following language:
“When a party seeks to file confidential documents, things, and/or
information, including confidential portions of any transcript, a party shall
submit such materials to the court in a sealed envelope or other appropriately
sealed container, which covering shall be endorsed with the title of this
action and a statement substantially in the following form: ‘Filed Under Seal
Pursuant to Protective Order.’”
Before ruling on any motion to seal the court will give the public notice of
the motion and a reasonable opportunity to challenge it. While individual
notice is unwarranted, the court will docket the motion reasonably in advance
of deciding the issue, or, where applicable, the court will notify persons
present in courtroom proceedings of the motion. The court will rule
favorably upon any motion to seal only after carefully weighing the interest
advanced by the movant and those interests favoring public access to judicial
documents and records, and only upon finding that the interests advanced by
the movant override any constitutional or common law right of public access
which may attach to the documents, things, and/or information at issue.
Any motion shall be accompanied at time of filing with a proposed form of order,
stating its requested relief.
Any motion for leave to join additional parties or to otherwise amend the pleadings
shall be filed by the parties by May 16, 2018.
Plaintiff has until August 15, 2018 to file responses to defendants’ motions for
summary judgment. (DE 60, DE 65). Defendants will have 14 days after the filing
of plaintiff’s responses to file any replies. All other potentially dispositive motions
shall be filed by August 15, 2018.
Any motion to compel discovery shall be filed and served within 30 days of the act
or omission in discovery complained of, unless the time for filing such a motion is
extended for good cause shown. Such motions ordinarily will be referred to a
magistrate judge for ruling.
Any motion to continue must conform with the requirements set forth in Local Civil
Rule 6.1, and also include a detailed statement as to the reason for the requested
continuance or extension of time together with the proposed order. Continuances
will be granted only upon showing of good cause, particularly focusing upon the
evidence of diligence by the party seeking delay and of prejudice that may result if
the continuance is denied.
III. Alternative Dispute Resolution (“ADR”)
A settlement procedure is required in virtually every case, to be conducted before the
final pretrial conference.
After consideration of issues bearing on ADR, the court dispenses with requirement
for resort to any ADR procedure in this case.
IV. Pretrial and Trial Scheduling
After the court has ruled on any dispositive motion(s), the court will enter a scheduling order
governing deadlines and procedures for final pretrial conference and trial, as appropriate. The case
schedule set forth herein shall not be modified except by leave of court upon a showing of good
cause, and all requirements set forth in the court’s Local Civil Rules governing pretrial and trial
procedures not altered herein shall be strictly observed.
SO ORDERED, this the 16th day of April, 2018.
LOUISE W. FLANAGAN
United States District Judge
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?