25.07.2013 Views

Plaintiffs' reply in support of their motion for partial summary judgment

Plaintiffs' reply in support of their motion for partial summary judgment

Plaintiffs' reply in support of their motion for partial summary judgment

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

Case 2:08-cv-00575-GLF-NMK Document 75 Filed 01/14/10 Page 52 <strong>of</strong> 54<br />

2:06-cv-844, 2008 WL 2557252, at *1, 5 (S.D. Ohio June 23, 2008) (deny<strong>in</strong>g <strong>motion</strong> <strong>for</strong><br />

reconsideration <strong>of</strong> denial <strong>of</strong> <strong>summary</strong> <strong>judgment</strong> that was based <strong>in</strong> part on the fact that defendant<br />

“failed to file the required court reporter certification with a deposition transcript that would<br />

enable the Court to consider the transcript as <strong>summary</strong> <strong>judgment</strong> evidence”).<br />

c. Several Of The Exhibits Conta<strong>in</strong> Documents Identify<strong>in</strong>g<br />

Mount Vernon Students By Name In Violation Of The Court’s<br />

Protective Order.<br />

Although the protective order the Court put <strong>in</strong> place on June 24, 2008 has been lifted as<br />

to Zach Dennis, it rema<strong>in</strong>s <strong>in</strong> place as to all other m<strong>in</strong>ors. (See 11/16/09 Order (Doc. No. 59)<br />

(grant<strong>in</strong>g that the Proposed Agreed Protective Order (Doc. No. 38) “rema<strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong> place with respect<br />

to all m<strong>in</strong>ors other than James Doe”).) A number <strong>of</strong> the exhibits that defense counsel filed on<br />

January 7, 2010 refer by name to students <strong>in</strong> the Mount Vernon City School District. (See, e.g.,<br />

Exs. C, AA, CC, HH to Def.’s Mot. <strong>for</strong> Permission to File Out <strong>of</strong> Time to Amend/Correct.)<br />

Because these exhibits violate this Court’s protective order, they should not be considered as<br />

<strong>summary</strong>-<strong>judgment</strong> evidence.<br />

III. CONCLUSION<br />

For these reasons, Pla<strong>in</strong>tiffs respectfully request that the Court grant them <strong>summary</strong><br />

<strong>judgment</strong> on Defendant Freshwater’s counterclaims <strong>for</strong> defamation and <strong>in</strong>tentional <strong>in</strong>fliction <strong>of</strong><br />

e<strong>motion</strong>al distress and on <strong>their</strong> battery and Establishment Clause claims.<br />

45

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!