Skip to content.
About GPO   |   Newsroom/Media   |   Congressional Relations   |   Inspector General   |   Careers   |   Contact   |   askGPO   |   Help  
 

  FDsys > More Information
(Search string is required)
 

13-187 - Peterson et al v. Northeastern Local School District et al


Download Files

Metadata

Document in Context
13-187 - Peterson et al v. Northeastern Local School District et al
September 30, 2013
PDF | More
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that 6 Defendants' Motion to Strike Exhibits C and D to Plaintiffs' Complaint and All Related Allegations be DENIED as moot; and 9 Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings be DENIED without prejudice to renewal. Objections to R&R due by 10/18/2013. Signed by Magistrate Judge Sharon L Ovington on 9/30/13. (mm1)
October 21, 2013
PDF | More
DECISION AND ENTRY - Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that: 1. The Report and Recommendations filed on September 30, 2013 (Doc. #17) is ADOPTED in full; 2. Defendants' Motion to Strike Exhibits C and D to Plaintiffs' Complaint and All Related Allegations (Doc. #6) is DENIED as moot; and 3. Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc. #9) is DENIED without prejudice to renewal. Signed by Judge Walter H Rice on 10/21/13. (pb1)
May 20, 2014
PDF | More
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS that 16 Defendants' MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as set forth herein; and, this case remain pending on the docket of this Court. Objections to R&R due by 6/6/2014. Signed by Chief Magistrate Judge Sharon L Ovington on 5-20-14. (mm1)
September 15, 2014
PDF | More
DECISION AND ENTRY OVERRULING THE DEFENDANTS' OBJECTIONS (DOC. #27) TO THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS (DOC. #25) OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE; ADOPTING SAID RECOMMENDATIONS IN FULL; SUSTAINING IN PART AND OVERRULING IN PART DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS (DOC. #16); ALL CLAIMS OF PLAINTIFFS JACKI PETERSON AND KYLE PETERSON ARE DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; ALL CLAIMS AGAINST DEFENDANT NORTHEASTERN LOCAL SCHOOL DISTRICT ARE DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; PLAINTIFFS' PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS CLAIM (COUNT IV) IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, EXCEPT SAID CLAIM AGAINST DEFENDANT DENISE SCHNEIDER IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; PLAINTIFFS' STATE LAW CLAIMS FOR INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS (COUNT V) AND VIOLATION OF PRIVACY (COUNT VI) ARE DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; PLAINTIFFS' STATE LAW CLAIMS FOR NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS (COUNT VII) AND LOSS OF CONSORTIUM (COUNT VII) ARE DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; PLAINTIFFS JAZMEN PETERSON AND DAMEKA CUNIGAN MAY FILE A SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT WITHIN TWENTY (20) DAYS IN ORDER TO REPLEAD THE PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS CLAIM AND THE STATE LAW CLAIMS OF INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS AND INVASION OF PRIVACY; ALL AMENDMENTS MUST TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE STRICTURES OF RULE 11 OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. Signed by Judge Walter H Rice on 09/12/14. (pb1)
April 29, 2015
PDF | More
DECISION AND ENTRY OVERRULING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY (DOC. #42) WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO RENEWAL. Signed by Judge Walter H Rice on 4/29/2015. (ead)
August 25, 2015
PDF | More
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS: 48 Defendants' Amended Motion To Compel Discovery be GRANTED; Plaintiffs be ordered to produce all documents in their possession, custody, or control that are in any of 5 remaining categories of documents set forth above; Plaintiffs be ordered that if no responsive documents exist, they shall submit an affidavit to Defendants' counsel as set forth herein; and Plaintiffs be ORDERED to show cause why they should not be required to pay Defendants' costs. Objections to R&R due by 9/11/2015. Signed by Chief Magistrate Judge Sharon L. Ovington on 8/25/15. (mcm1)
September 30, 2015
PDF | More
ENTRY SUSTAINING DEFENDANTS' AMENDED MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY (DOC. #48), ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE (DOC. #62), AND SUSTAINING PLAINTIFFS' OBJECTION TO SAID JUDICIAL FILING (DOC. #64); ORDER TO PLAINTIFFS - Pending before the Court is the Amended Motion to Compel Discovery (Doc. #48) filed by Defendants Louis A. Kramer, John Hill, and Allyson Teusik ("Defendants"), seeking an order that compels Plaintiffs Jazmen Peterson and Dameka Cunigan ("Plaintiffs") to produce a number of discovery documents that are relevant to Plaintiffs' claims. Plaintiffs assert that these documents have either already been provided or do not exist. The matter was referred to Chief United States Magistrate Judge Sharon L. Ovington, who has filed a Report and Recommendations recommending that the Court sustain Defendants' Amended Motion to Compel Discovery. Doc. #62. The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge's conclusion that Defendants were justified in filing such a motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(3), because many of Plaintiffs' responses to Defendants' discovery requests did not constitute proper objections under Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2). Plaintiffs have filed an Objection to the Report and Recommendations, but only "to the extent that it does not specify a specific time" for complying with the recommended order therein. Doc. #64. Plaintiffs' attorney requests that he be given until October 16, 2015, to comply. This request is reasonable. The Objection is, therefore, SUSTAINED. Based upon the reasoning and citations set forth in the Report and Recommendations (Doc. #62), as well as upon a thorough de novo review of the record and the applicable law, the Court adopts the conclusions and recommendations therein. Accordingly, Defendants' motion (Doc. #48) is SUSTAINED, and Plaintiffs are ORDERED as follows: 1) Plaintiffs are ordered to produce all documents in their possession, custody, or control that are in any the categories of documents described in the Report and Recommendations; 2) If no responsive documents exist, Plaintiffs shall submit an affidavit to Defendants' counsel certifying that they have completed a reasonable inquiry into locating and producing responsive documents. Plaintiffs shall also disclose in the affidavit the particular parameters of their searches and the details of the steps they took to locate responsive documents; 3) Plaintiffs are ordered to show cause why they should not be required to pay Defendants' costs pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(5). Plaintiffs must comply with this ORDER by October 16, 2015. Signed by Judge Walter H. Rice on 9/30/2015. (ead)
November 3, 2015
PDF | More
ENTRY NOTING PLAINTIFFS' FAILURE TO RESPOND TO THE COURT'S ORDER (DOC. #65) TO SHOW CAUSE WHY DEFENDANTS SHOULD NOT RECOVER REASONABLE EXPENSES AND ATTORNEYS' FEES UNDER FED. R. CIV. P. 37(a)(5)(A); DEFENDANTS ARE ORDERED TO FILE, WITHIN FOURTEEN ( 14) DAYS FROM DATE, A FEE APPLICATION QUANTIFYING THE REASONABLE EXPENSES AND ATTORNEYS' FEES INCURRED IN FILING THEIR AMENDED MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY (DOC. #48); PLAINTIFFS MAY FILE A RESPONSE WITHIN FOURTEEN ( 14) DAYS THEREAFTER -. Signed by Judge Walter H. Rice on 11/2/2015. (ead)
February 18, 2016
PDF | More
DECISION AND ENTRY SUSTAINING DEFENDANTS JOHN HILL, LOUIS A. KRAMER, AND ALLYSON TEUSINK'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DOC. #52) AND OVERRULING AS MOOT DEFENDANTS' PRE-TRIAL MOTION FOR DISCOVERY SANCTIONS (DOC. #72); JUDGMENT TO ENTER IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANTS AND AGAINST PLAINTIFFS; TERMINATION ENTRY. Signed by Judge Walter H. Rice on 2/17/16. (pb)