Doe et al v. Rutherford County, Tennessee, Board of Education

Filing 106

ORDER denying as moot 62 Motion to Ascertain Status of Ruling on 62 Motion to Quash, denying 103 Motion to Strike, and granting 105 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response - Response due 8/8/2014. Signed by District Judge Aleta A. Trauger on 8/5/2014. (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(ds)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION
JANE DOE, JOHN and MARY DOE, Parents
And Legal Guardians of the Minor Child, JUNE
DOE; JOHN and MARY DOE, Parents and
Legal Guardians of the Minor Child, SALLY
DOE,
Plaintiff,
v.
RUTHERFORD COUNTY, TENNESSEE,
BOARD OF EDUCATION,
Defendants,

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

Case No. 3:13-cv-00328
Judge Aleta A. Trauger

ORDER
On June 29, 2014, the defendants filed a Statement of Material Facts in support of their
Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 79) (filed under seal), to which the plaintiffs filed a
Response on July 21, 2014 (Docket No. 99) (filed under seal). The defendants have filed a
Motion to Strike the plaintiffs’ Response (Docket No. 103), in which they argue that the
plaintiffs’ Response does not comply with Local Rule 56.01. They request that the court strike
the Response or, in the alternative, recommend that the court “carefully review all of Plaintiffs’
responses and citations” to confirm whether the stated facts are actually in dispute. Having
reviewed the plaintiffs’ Response, the court will adopt the latter approach, which it typically
undertakes in any case. Subject to that clarification, the defendant’s Motion to Strike (Docket
No. 103) is hereby DENIED.

1

The defendants have also filed a Motion for Extension of Time to File a Response to the
Plaintiffs’ Statements of Facts. (Docket No. 105.) That motion, which requests an extension to
August 8, 2014, is hereby GRANTED.
On a separate note, the affidavit filed under seal at Docket No. 84 purports to attach an
“Exhibit 1,” but no exhibit is attached. The defendants should file a corrected affidavit as soon
as practicable, and in any event no later than August 8, 2014.
Finally, as a housekeeping matter, the defendants’ Motion to Ascertain Status of Ruling
on Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash (Docket No. 62) is hereby DENIED AS MOOT. The docket
reflects that Magistrate Judge denied the Motion to Quash on April 24, 2014 (Docket No. 72),
thereby mooting the Motion to Ascertain Status.
It is so ORDERED
Enter this 5th day of August 2014.
_____________________________
ALETA A. TRAUGER
United States District Judge

2