Walega v. MacGregor et al
Filing
80
MEMORANDUM ORDER - 1. The plaintiffs motion to seal (Doc. 72 ) is DENIED;2. The plaintiffs motion to strike the defendants motion forsummary judgment (Doc. 75 ) is DENIED; and 3. The plaintiffs motion for potentially dispositive adjustment, which we construe as a motion for an extension of time (Doc. 78 ), is GRANTED. The plaintiff shall file a brief in opposition to the motion for summary judgment on or before Wednesday, February 12, 2025. Signed by Chief MJ Daryl F. Bloom on January 29, 2025. (kjn)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
DAWN WALEGA,
Plaintiff,
v.
JUSTIN MACGREGOR, et al.,
Defendants.
: Civil No. 3:21-CV-02006
:
:
: (Judge Mannion)
:
: (Chief Magistrate Judge Bloom)
:
:
:
MEMORANDUM ORDER
The background of this order is as follows:
The pro se plaintiff, Dawn Walega, filed this employment
discrimination action on November 29, 2021. (Doc. 1). Since the filing of
this action, Walega has filed several amended complaints, the third
amended complaint being the operative pleading. (Doc. 37). The
defendants filed a motion to dismiss the third amended complaint, which
was granted in part and denied in part. (Docs. 52, 53). The remaining
claims against the remaining defendant, Lackawanna County, consist of
age discrimination and retaliation in violation of the Age Discrimination
in Employment Act (“ADEA”), as well as various state law claims. (See
id.).
A Case Management Order in this matter was issued on December
28, 2023. (Doc. 58). This Order set a dispositive motions deadline of
January 2, 2025. (Id.). The defendant filed a motion for summary
judgment. (Doc. 74). Walega filed a motion to strike the defendant’s
motion, arguing that the motion was untimely filed. (Doc. 75). She also
filed several other miscellaneous motions, including a motion to seal the
case (Doc. 72), and a “motion for potentially dispositive adjustment” (Doc.
78).
Walega’s motion to strike the defendant’s summary judgment
motion will be denied. The motion for summary judgment was timely
filed.
As we have explained, the Case Management Order set the
deadline for dispositive motions as January 2, 2025. The defendant filed
its motion the same day. Accordingly, the motion is not untimely, and we
will deny the motion to strike. (Doc. 75).
We will further deny Walega’s motion to seal. In her motion,
Walega vaguely asserts that this matter should be sealed “due to privacy
concerns regarding family members.” (Doc. 72 at 1-2). However, the
remainder of this filing appears to be a copy of a brief in opposition to the
defendant’s motion to dismiss the third amended complaint, which has
2
already been decided by this court. (See Doc. 72 at 3-19). The documents
submitted with this motion to seal appear to be a request to file a
dispositive motion, as well as the same brief in opposition to the
defendant’s earlier motion to dismiss. (See Docs. 73, 73-1).
Walega’s filings fall woefully short of establishing the kind of “good
cause” required for sealing documents in this case. The Third Circuit has
held that a party seeking to seal documents must establish that
“disclosure will work a clearly defined and serious injury to the party
seeking closure.” Pansy v. Borough of Stroudsburg, 23 F.3d 772, 786 (3d
Cir. 1994) (quoting Publicker Indus., Inc. v. Cohen, 733 F.2d 1059, 1071
(3d Cir. 1984)) (internal quotation marks omitted). Such an injury “must
be shown with specificity[,]” id., and
“[b]road allegations of harm,
unsubstantiated by specific examples or articulated reasoning,” will not
meet the requisite showing for good cause. Id. (quoting Cipollone v.
Liggett Group, Inc., 785 F.2d 1108, 1121 (3d Cir. 1986)). Here, Walega
has not established good cause to seal this case, and her motion to seal
will therefore be denied.
Finally, Walega has filed a “motion for dispositive adjustment,”
(Doc. 78), in which she appears to again attach the same brief in
3
opposition to the defendant’s earlier motion to dismiss. Walega also filed
a brief in opposition to the defendant’s motion for summary judgment
and attaches the same brief. (Doc. 77). After consideration, we will
construe Walega’s motion as a motion for an extension of time in which
to file an opposition to the defendant’s summary judgment motion, and
we will grant her such an extension of time.
We note for the plaintiff that, while she is proceeding pro se, “pro
se litigants are not excused from compliance with procedural rules[.]”
Parikh v. United Parcel Service, Inc., 2012 WL 1134912, at *2 (D.N.J.
April 3, 2012) (quoting Pearle Vision, Inc. v. Romm, 541 F.3d 751, 758
(7th Cir. 2008)). Local Rule 7.6 provides that “[a] brief in opposition to a
motion for summary judgment and LR 56.1 responsive statement,
together
with
any
transcripts,
affidavits
or
other
relevant
documentation, shall be filed within twenty-one (21) days after service of
the movant’s brief.” Local Rule 7.6. Additionally, Local Rule 56.1 requires
that:
The papers opposing a motion for summary judgment
shall include a separate, short and concise statement of the
material facts, responding to the numbered paragraphs set
forth in the statement required in the foregoing paragraph, as
to which it is contended that there exists a genuine issue to
be tried.
4
Statements of material facts in support of, or in
opposition to, a motion shall include references to the parts of
the record that support the statements.
All material facts set forth in the statement required to
be served by the moving party will be deemed to be admitted
unless controverted by the statement required to be served by
the opposing party.
Local Rule 56.1.
We will grant the plaintiff an extension of time in which to file a
brief in opposition to the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, and
this brief in opposition must be filed on or before Wednesday, February
12, 2025. The brief in opposition shall address the defendant’s motion for
summary judgment, rather than the defendant’s earlier motion to
dismiss, and shall comply with the Local Rules as set forth above. The
plaintiff is further placed on notice that her failure to file a brief by this
deadline will result in the defendant’s motion being deemed unopposed.
See Local Rule 7.6 (“Any party who fails to comply with this rule shall be
deemed not to oppose such motion.”).
As such, in accordance with the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY
ORDERED THAT:
1. The plaintiff’s motion to seal (Doc. 72) is DENIED;
5
2. The plaintiff’s motion to strike the defendant’s motion for
summary judgment (Doc. 75) is DENIED; and
3. The plaintiff’s “motion for potentially dispositive adjustment,”
which we construe as a motion for an extension of time (Doc. 78),
is GRANTED. The plaintiff shall file a brief in opposition to the
motion for summary judgment on or before Wednesday,
February 12, 2025.
So ordered this 29th day of January 2025.
s/ Daryl F. Bloom
Daryl F. Bloom
Chief United States Magistrate Judge
6
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?