Doe #1 v. Deja Vu Consulting, Inc. et al

Filing 72

ORDER disposing of pending motions 40 , 43 , 49 , 59 , 67 , 6 . Signed by District Judge Aleta A. Trauger on 9/1/17. (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(af)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE NASHVILLE DIVISION JANE DOE #1, Plaintiff, v. DÉJÀ VU CONSULTING INC. et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 3:17-cv-00040 Judge Aleta A. Trauger ORDER For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum, the court disposes of all pending motions in this case as follows: (1) The plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed Pseudonymously, to Permit Filing of All Unredacted Consents Under Seal, and for Entry of a Permanent Protective Order (Doc. No. 49) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. The court GRANTS permission, nunc pro tunc, to file this case pseudonymously, and the plaintiff is PERMITTED to maintain her anonymity in past public court filings and any future court filings. However, her request to file future consent notices under seal is DENIED AS MOOT in light of the court’s determination that this matter must be dismissed in favor of arbitration. Likewise, the request for a protective order has largely been rendered moot, but the court GRANTS the motion IN PART, as follows: a. The defendants and their counsel shall be permitted to receive the names and personally identifying information concerning Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2. b. The defendants and defense counsel shall maintain in strict confidence the names and personally identifying information concerning Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 that they obtain 2 in the future or have already obtained and shall not disclose this information to any other party or entity except as necessary to the defense of this case, in arbitration or otherwise. c. The defendants and their counsel shall not disseminate publicly the information protected by this Order, and any pleadings or exhibits filed with the court shall reference the named plaintiff by her pseudonym only. (2) The defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction (Doc. No. 59) is DENIED AS MOOT. (3) The defendants’ Motion to Reconsider (Doc. No. 43) the court’s previous Order (Doc. No. 34) is DENIED. (4) The plaintiff’s Motion to Hold Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss or to Stay in Favor of Arbitration in Abeyance (Doc. No. 67) is DENIED. (5) The defendants’ Motion to Dismiss or to Stay in Favor of Arbitration (Doc. No. 40) is GRANTED and this case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, but the court retains jurisdiction to enter judgment on any arbitration award or to consider other relief sought at the conclusion of arbitration. (6) The plaintiff’s Motion for Expedited Court-Supervised Notice to Putative Class Members Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) (Doc. No. 6) is DENIED AS MOOT. It is so ORDERED. This is the final Order in this action for purposes of Fed. R. Civ. P. 58, from which an appeal may be taken. It is so ORDERED. ENTER this 1st day of September 2017. ___________________________ ALETA A. TRAUGER 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?