DOE et al v. MAINE SCHOOL ADMINISTRATIVE DISTRICT 13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, DISTRICT OF MAINE

ORDER ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Pro Se Motion (ECF No. 27), which seeks reconsideration of this Court’s June 19, 2020 Order on Motions to Dismiss (ECF No. 21) and also raises concerns about protecting the privacy of E.K., the minor at the center of Plaintiffs’ claims. As briefly explained herein, the Court GRANTS IN PART & DENIES IN PART the Motion.

In response to the Motion, the School Defendants indicate that they do not oppose allowing Plaintiffs to proceed by pseudonym. The Court finds that Plaintiffs have established good cause to proceed anonymously. Thus, the Court GRANTS this request. The Clerk’s Office shall recaption to this case to refer to E.K.’s parents at John Doe and Jane Doe respectively and, in future filings, all parties shall refer to Plaintiffs by these pseudonyms.

Turning to Plaintiffs’ request that this Court reconsider its June 19, 2020 Order on Motions to Dismiss (ECF No. 21), the School Defendants do oppose this request. The Court’s June 19, 2020 Order disposed of three motions to dismiss (ECF Nos. 18-20), which various defendants had filed on May 15, 2020. These motions were sent to Plaintiffs via U.S. mail that same day. Nonetheless, Plaintiffs filed no objection to these three motions. In the pending Motions for 2 Reconsideration, Plaintiffs assert that they did not receive the motions in the mail at the address listed on the docket and that they would have filed a response if they had received the motions. 1 Additionally, Plaintiff suggest that the motions should have been separately mailed to Jane Doe and suggest that docketed items should be emailed to them.

As to the request to reconsider the merits of the Court’s June 19, 2020 Order on Motions to Dismiss (ECF No. 21), nothing in Plaintiffs’ Motion provides a substantive basis for this Court to conclude that there was a manifest error of fact or law in its decision to dismiss some of Plaintiffs’ claims. Additionally, Plaintiffs do not assert that they did not receive the June 19, 2020 Order, which the docket indicates was mailed to them on June 23, 2020, and not returned to the Court. Under District of Maine Local Rule 7(f), Plaintiffs were required to file any motion for reconsideration “within 14 days from the date of the order unless the party seeking reconsideration shows cause for not filing within that time. Cause for not filing within 14 days from the date of the order includes newly available material evidence and an intervening change in the governing legal standard.” Given this limitation, the Court additionally concludes that Plainitffs’ Motion for Reconsideration, which was mailed to the Court on July 23, 2020, and docketed by this Court on July 28, 2020, is untimely. Having given full consideration to the Motion despite its belated filing, the Court DENIES the Motion for Reconsideration.

Because Plaintiffs’ pro se filing also seeks receipt of filings at an additional mailing address and/or via email, the Clerk is directed to mail Plaintiffs an additional copy of the District of 1 While Plaintiffs assert they did not receive the underlying motion papers, based on the certificates of service attached to each motion and the additional information the School Defendants have provided in responding to the present motion, the Court concludes all of the motion papers were mailed to Plaintiffs and not returned to their respective senders. See ECF No. 28-1. 3 Maine’s Information for Pro Se Parties 2 and a copy of the ECF Registration for Pro Se Filers. Plaintiffs are free to use the instructions in this packet to provide an updated mailing address for Jane Doe, or to pursue registration in the Court’s electronic case filing (“ECF”) system, which would allow for electronic service of all filings and orders placed on the docket.

SO ORDERED.

/s/ George Z. Singal

United States District Judge

Dated this 8th day of September, 2020. 2 As noted on the docket, this information was previously mailed to Plaintiffs in April 2020. See ECF No. 16. However, this mailing may have overlapped with the February-to-April timeframe where Doe represents he was unable to receive mail at the mailing address he has provided the Court due to issues with his mailbox. 4