United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER
Patricia A. Gaughan, United States District Court Chief
matter is before the Court upon the plaintiffs' Rule
59(E) Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment Based in Part upon
New Information and FRCP 15(A) Motion for Leave to File a
First Amended Complaint Instanter (Doc. 22) and
Cuyahoga County Defendants' Motion to Strike
Plaintiffs' FRCP 59(E) and 15(A) Motion (Doc. 23). For
the following reasons, the Motion to Strike is GRANTED and
the Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment and Motion for Leave is
prior Memorandum of Opinion and Order, this Court granted the
County defendants' Motion to Dismiss as to the federal
claim and dismissed the state law claims without prejudice.
The Court will not re-state the facts or discussion set forth
in that Opinion. Briefly, the Court determined that
plaintiffs failed to state a § 1983 claim as alleged in
Count One against the individual County defendants for a
violation of substantive and procedural due process. In
particular, the Court concluded that the Complaint did not
plausibly allege either the custody exception or the state
created danger exception to the established rule that a
state's failure to protect an individual against private
violence does not constitute a violation of the substantive
due process clause. Nor did the Complaint state a plausible
procedural due process claim. Additionally, the Complaint
failed to allege a custom, policy, or practice to hold the
County liable under § 1983.
now ask the Court to alter the judgment and grant plaintiffs
leave to amend their Complaint based upon deposition
testimony which was completed prior to the issuance of the
ruling on the Motion to Dismiss. In addition to opposing the
motion, defendants ask the Court to strike it. That request
will be addressed first.
ask the Court strike plaintiff's Motion which seeks
reconsideration of this Court's Opinion and leave to
amend the Complaint. Defendants argue that plaintiffs have
filed their motion in violation of the protective order
previously entered into by the parties, and have defied this
Court's more recent ruling denying plaintiffs'
request to file their motion for reconsideration under seal.
For the following reasons, this Court agrees.
April 12, 2019, the parties filed a Joint and Stipulated
Motion for Protective Order. (Doc. 14) This Court signed the
Stipulated Protective Order submitted by the parties on that
day (Doc. 15) which states in part:
1. Scope. All documents produced in the
course of discovery, including initial disclosures, all
responses to discovery requests, all deposition testimony and
exhibits, other materials which may be subject to
restrictions on disclosure for good cause and information
derived directly therefrom (hereinafter collectively
“documents”), shall be subject to this Order
concerning confidential information as set forth below...
Court held a status conference on May 16, 2019, and issued
its Memorandum of Opinion and Order on the Motion to Dismiss
on May 23. On June 10, plaintiffs filed a Motion For Leave to
File Under Seal which sought to file a motion to reconsider
under seal. Plaintiffs stated therein:
3. A Stipulated Protective Order filed with the Court on
4/12/19 requires deposition testimony pertaining to this
matter be filed under seal. (Dkt # 15.)
4. Plaintiffs seek to file a Motion to Reconsider, which
cites deposition testimony and transcripts.
5. In order to maintain the confidentiality required by the
Stipulated Protective Order, Plaintiffs respectfully request
that their Motion to Reconsider be filed under seal.
(Doc. 21) This Court denied the motion stating,
“Deposition testimony may not be considered on a Motion
to Dismiss.” Several days later, plaintiffs filed their
Rule 59(E) Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment Based in Part
upon New Information and FRCP ...