Opinion
CASE NO. 3:06-CV-49 (CDL).
September 19, 2007
ORDER
Presently pending before the Court are Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend, Amended Motion to Seal, and Motion to Strike, and motions to dismiss filed by Defendants Clarke County School District and the Georgia Department of Education. For the following reasons, the Court grants Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend (Doc. 15) and grants in part Plaintiffs' Motion to Seal (Doc. 25); the Court denies the remaining pending motions as moot (Docs. 9, 12, 43).
DISCUSSION
I. Motion to Amend
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) provides: "A party may amend its pleading once as a matter of course: (A) before being served with a responsive pleading; or (B) within 20 days after serving the pleading if a responsive pleading is not allowed and the action is not yet on the trial calendar." It is well-established that "[f]or the purposes of this Rule, the term 'responsive pleading' does not include such filings as a motion to dismiss or a motion for summary judgment." Brewer-Giorgio v. Producers Video, Inc., 216 F.3d 1281, 1284 (11th Cir. 2000) (citing Burns v. Lawther, 53 F.3d 1237, 1241 (11th Cir. 1995)); see also Fed.R.Civ.P. 7(a) (limiting "pleadings" to a complaint, answer, reply to a counterclaim, answer to cross-claim, third-party complaint, third-party answer, and replies to an answer or third-party answer). When a case has multiple defendants, "the plaintiff may amend the complaint as a matter of course with regard to those defendants that have yet to answer." Williams v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. Sys. of Ga., 477 F.3d 1282, 1291 (11th Cir. 2007) (citing Brewer-Giorgio, 216 F.3d at 1284). It is clear error for the district court to deny a plaintiff's motion to amend as a matter of course even when a defendant alleges that amending the complaint would be futile. See id. at 1292 n. 6.
Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend their Complaint was filed on December 4, 2006 and remains pending before this Court. Because neither Defendant has yet to file a "responsive pleading" within the meaning of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiffs have the right to amend their Complaint once as a matter of course. This Court has no discretion to deny Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend, despite Defendants' contentions that permitting an amendment of the original Complaint would be unnecessarily burdensome.
Accordingly, Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend (Doc. 15) is granted. Because Defendants' pending motions to dismiss (Docs. 9 and 12) respond to Plaintiffs' original Complaint, those motions must be denied as moot. Plaintiffs shall file their amended complaint within fourteen days from the date of this Order. Defendants shall respond within thirty days from the date Plaintiffs' amended complaint is filed. If appropriate, Defendants may simply refile or renew their existing motions to dismiss. Prior to filing these documents, the Court encourages both parties to examine the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision in Winkelman v. Parma City School District, 127 S. Ct. 1994 (2007) (allowing parents to sue in federal court under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act to enforce their own substantive and procedural rights in their child's free appropriate public education; declining to decide whether non-lawyer parents may represent their child's interest in federal court).
In light of the foregoing, the Court also denies Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike "Reply in Support of Clarke County School District's Motion to Dismiss" and Motion to Admonish its Counsel to Obey the Court Rules (Doc. 43) as moot. However, Defendants are reminded that all documents filed with this Court must conform to the local rules and that this Court must grant leave to any party wishing to exceed the page limitations prescribed by those rules.
II. Motion to Seal
Finally, this Court grants, in part, Plaintiffs' Motion to Seal (Doc. 25). Plaintiffs request that (1) their names and signatures be "sealed" in all documents filed with the Court; (2) their address and phone number be "sealed" in all documents filed with the Court; and (3) the Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis, addendum to motion, and order denying motion (Docs. 1, 3, and 4) be sealed in their entirety. For the following reasons, this Court grants Plaintiffs' motion with respect to Documents 1, 3, and 4 and denies Plaintiffs' request to have their signatures, addresses, and phone number sealed.
Plaintiffs previously, on September 21, 2006, filed a Motion to Seal the case. District Judge C. Ashley Royal denied Plaintiffs' motion because Plaintiffs failed to provide sufficient justification for sealing the entire record. See Order on Pls.' Mot. to Seal. However, Judge Royal granted leave for Plaintiffs to request that individual documents containing sensitive information be sealed, so long as Plaintiffs could provide "compelling need for such an order that substantially outweighs the public's interest in open judicial proceedings." Id.
Plaintiffs contend that the Family Education Rights and Privacy Act ("FERPA") requires this Court to shield any information that could be used to identify their disabled minor child, M.W. However, FERPA is inapplicable to these judicial proceedings; FERPA requires schools who receive federal funding to institute measures designed to protect the privacy of the educational records of its students. See generally 20 U.S.C. § 1232g (2007).
A determination of whether a particular document should be sealed requires a balancing of the common-law right of access to judicial records against the privacy of the individual. See Chicago Tribune Co. v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 263 F.3d 1304, 1311 (11th Cir. 2001). The Eleventh Circuit has noted:
Although there is some disagreement about where precisely the line should be drawn, when applying the common-law right of access federal courts traditionally distinguish between those items which may properly be considered public or judicial records and those that may not; the media and public presumptively have access to the former, but not to the latter.Id. At least one other district court has noted that an application to proceed in forma pauperis is a private document to which no public right of access exists. See Olsen v. United States, No. 07-34-B-W, 2007 WL 1959205, at *1-2 (D. Me. July 3, 2007); see also Boston Herald, Inc. v. Connolly, 321 F.3d 174, 176 (1st Cir. 2003) (holding that there was no public right of access to documents filed by a criminal defendant to demonstrate financial eligibility for government funding of attorney fees).
In this case, the Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis, addendum, and order denying the motion contain detailed information concerning the Plaintiffs' finances, assets, and liabilities; these documents also contain some sensitive information concerning the Plaintiffs' family situation, including the extent to which their children suffer from disabilities. This Court finds that there is no presumption of a right to access to this private information. Accordingly, Plaintiffs' Motion to Seal (Doc. 25) is granted with respect to Documents 1, 3, and 4.
In contrast, Plaintiffs do not have the same privacy interest in their signatures, address, and telephone number, which they also request be "sealed." Plaintiffs essentially ask this Court to redact their identifying information from any court documents that have been filed. However, Plaintiffs are proceeding in this Court pro se. As such, they are "subject to the relevant law and rules of court, including the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure." Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 835, 837 (11th Cir. 1989). One of the rules by which Plaintiffs must abide is Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, which states: "Every pleading, written motion, and other paper shall be signed by at least one attorney of record in the attorney's individual name, or, if the party is not represented by an attorney, shall be signed by the party." Fed.R.Civ.P. 11. The Rule also requires each document filed with the Court to "state the signer's address and telephone number, if any." Id. Because Plaintiffs have exercised their right to represent themselves in this litigation, they are bound by this Rule. Thus, Plaintiffs may not redact their names, signatures, address, or phone number from any court documents and must continue to comply with Rule 11.
Plaintiffs are also directed to Local Rule 5.4, which permits Plaintiffs to continue to protect the identity of their child by using only his initials.
CONCLUSION
In summary, the Court rules as follows:(1) Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend (Doc. 15) is granted. Plaintiffs shall file their amended complaint within fourteen days from the date of this Order. Defendants shall respond within thirty days from the date Plaintiffs' amended complaint is filed and may respond by refiling or renewing their original motions to dismiss if appropriate.
(2) Defendants' motions to dismiss (Doc. 9 and Doc. 12) and Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike (Doc. 43) are denied as moot.
(3) Plaintiffs' Motion to Seal (Doc. 25) is granted with respect to its Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (Doc. 1), addendum (Doc. 3), and order (Doc. 4). Plaintiffs may not redact their names, signatures, address, or phone number from any court documents.
IT IS SO ORDERED.