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

Filing 112

ORDER granting 109 Motion to Strike and granting 110 Motion for Leave to Accept Late Responses. The clerk is directed to strike the entry at Docket No. 107 and to seal the entry. The court will treat the document filed under seal at Docket No. 108 as the operative set of plaintiffs' responses to the defendants asserted facts. Signed by District Judge Aleta A. Trauger on 8/6/2014. (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
The plaintiffs seek leave to amend their responses to certain facts asserted by the
defendant in support of the defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. The plaintiffs
inadvertently filed a motion seeking this relief without sealing the motion (Docket No. 107), and
now ask the court to strike that unsealed motion (Docket No. 109). The plaintiffs have refiled
the same underlying motion for leave under seal (Docket No. 110) and their proposed late-filed
responses under seal (Docket No. 108).
The plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike (Docket No. 109) is hereby GRANTED. The clerk is
directed to strike the entry at Docket No. 107 and to seal the entry, which otherwise would
disclose the identities of the minor plaintiffs in this lawsuit.
With respect to the sealed Motion for Leave to Accept Late Filed Responses, the
plaintiffs seek to amend their responses to seven of the 343 facts asserted by defendants,
amendments that would correct the inadvertent omission of certain revisions that should have

1

been, but were not, incorporated into the version filed with the court on July 21, 2014. The court
finds that permitting these corrections and considering them in connection with the pending
Motion for Summary Judgment would serve the interests of justice, are the result of excusable
neglect or inadvertence, and will result in negligible prejudice to the defendant. Accordingly, the
Motion for Leave (Docket No. 110) is hereby GRANTED. The court will therefore treat the
document filed under seal at Docket No. 108 as the operative set of plaintiffs’ responses to the
defendant’s asserted facts.
It is so ORDERED
Enter this 6th day of August 2014.
_____________________________
ALETA A. TRAUGER
United States District Judge

2