Doe #1 v. Deja Vu Consulting, Inc. et al
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)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
JANE DOE #1,
DÉJÀ VU CONSULTING INC. et al.,
Case No. 3:17-cv-00040
Judge Aleta A. Trauger
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:
The defendants and their counsel shall be permitted to receive the names and
personally identifying information concerning Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2.
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
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.
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?