Professional Documents
Culture Documents
LC V Williamsburg County - Federal - Interog
LC V Williamsburg County - Federal - Interog
FLORENCE DIVISION
NOW COME the parties, by and through their respective counsel of record, and submit
RESPONSE: This matter arises out of an alleged student on student sexual assault
that occurred in the boy’s locker room/restroom of Kingstree Middle Magnet School on or about
January 7, 2016 and from alleged acts and omission of school faculty, staff, employees, agents,
and administers, both before and after the alleged assault, which resulted in a violation of
Plaintiff’s rights.
2. The names of fact witnesses likely to be called by the parties and a brief summary
RESPONSE:
a. Jane Doe: Jane Doe is the minor plaintiff in this action and is expected to testify
1
4:18-cv-02270-DCC Date Filed 11/21/18 Entry Number 10 Page 2 of 8
regarding the allegations set forth in the Complaint with respect to the circumstances
surrounding the alleged sexual assault, her alleged injuries and damages.
b. LC: L.C. is the mother of the minor Jane Doe and her parent and natural guardian who
has filed this action on behalf of her daughter. She will testify regarding her
interactions with Jane Doe, the Kingstree Police Department, Kingstree Middle Magnet
School, and medical providers before and/or after the sexual assault on Jane Doe.
c. Mack Burgess, Former Assistant Principal, Kingstree Middle Magnet School: Mack
Burgess served as Assistant Principal of Kingstree Middle Magnet School at the time
of the incident which forms the basis of this lawsuit. Mr. Burgess is expected to testify
regarding the District’s investigation of the alleged incidents, steps taken after the
alleged incidents were brought to the District’s attention, the District’s policies and
procedures, training provided to staff, information known to him regarding prior sexual
misconduct by students, if any, matters relevant to the allegations in the Complaint and
Answer filed in this matter, and possibly other issues.
e. Hester Gadsden, Former Principal, Kingstree Middle Magnet School: Hester Gadsden
served as Principal of Kingstree Middle Magnet School at the time of the incident
which forms the basis of this lawsuit. Mr. Gadsden is expected to testify regarding the
District’s investigation of the alleged incidents, steps taken after the alleged incidents
were brought to the District’s attention, the District’s policies and procedures, training
provided to staff, matters relevant to the allegations in the Complaint and Answer filed
in this matter, and possible other issues.
h. Latasha Moore, Security Officer, Kingstree Middle Magnet School: Latarsha Moore
2
4:18-cv-02270-DCC Date Filed 11/21/18 Entry Number 10 Page 3 of 8
served as a Security Officer at Kingstree Middle Magnet Middle School at the time of
the incident which forms the basis of this lawsuit. Ms. Moore is expected to testify
regarding the District’s investigation of the alleged incidents, steps taken after the
alleged incidents were brought to the District’s attention, and possibly other issues.
j. Current and former Kingstree Police Department officers regarding their interactions
and dealings with the parties before and after the alleged sexual assault on Jane Doe.
k. Any experts identified by the parties in accordance with this Court’s Scheduling Order.
l. Medical providers and professionals who treated and/or evaluated Jane Doe after this
incident.
m. The parties reserve the right to depose witnesses named by the parties in response to
the discovery requests served, as well as any other person who has knowledge
regarding these claims and defenses.
n. Former Kingstree Middle Magnet School students identified through discovery who
have knowledge of the alleged sexual assault and information regarding interactions
between the Minor Plaintiff and the male student attackers.
3. The names and subject matter of expert witnesses. (If no witnesses have been
identified, the subject matter and field of expertise should be given as to experts likely to be
offered):
RESPONSE: The parties have not identified experts at this time, but they reserve their
right to do so. If the parties identify experts, they will disclose their expert witnesses in
accordance with the Court’s Order by the designated deadline. Expert witnesses likely will testify
in the areas of public school administration and the exercise of supervision over minor students,
4. A summary of the claims or defenses with the statutory and/or case citation support
3
4:18-cv-02270-DCC Date Filed 11/21/18 Entry Number 10 Page 4 of 8
the same:
RESPONSE:
Plaintiff’s position: This action is brought on behalf of the minor Jane Doe who was a
student at Kingstree Middle Magnet School (“KMMS”). Plaintiff alleges that on January 7, 2016,
Jane Doe was sexually assaulted by a male student in the boy’s locker room/restroom at KMMS.
(“WCSD”). At all times pertinent to this action, Defendant Carrie Brock was the superintendent
of WCSD, Defendant Mack Burgess was the KMMS vice-principal and Defendant Hester Gadsden
was the KMMS principal. Amongst other allegations, Plaintiff alleges: that the Defendants had
actual notice of the student attackers’ propensity to sexually assault female students; that through
the Defendants’ affirmative acts they created or increased the risk of danger to Jane Doe and
similarly situated minor female students; and that Defendants’ conduct before and/or after the
sexual assault deprived Jane Doe of her ability to earn a public education free from discrimination
and harassment. Plaintiff alleges physical, emotional and constitutional injuries which entitle her
to actual and punitive damages in an amount to be determined by the jury and attorney’s fees and
costs.
(a) Supervisory Liability: Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Plaintiff has brought supervisory
Brock, Gadsden and Burgess in their individual capacities, acting under the color of
state law and within the course and scope of their official duties as administrators and
principals at WCSD and KMMS. See e.g. Doe v. Rosa, 795 F.3d 429 (4th Cir. 2015);
Pagano by Pagano v. Massapequa Pub. Sch., 714 F. Supp. 641 (E.D.N.Y. 1989); 42
U.S.C. § 1988(b) (authorizing attorney’s fees); Smith v. Wade, 461 U.S. 30, 103 S. Ct.
4
4:18-cv-02270-DCC Date Filed 11/21/18 Entry Number 10 Page 5 of 8
1625, 75 L. Ed. 2d 632 (1983) (punitive damages are available in a 1983 action).
(b) Violation of Fourteenth Amendment: Plaintiff has brought causes of action against all
Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment Right to Equal Protection and Freedom from Sexual
Rosa, 795 F.3d 429 (4th Cir. 2015); Murrell v. Sch. Dist. No. 1, Denver, Colo., 186
F.3d 1238 (10th Cir. 1999); Doe v. Bibb Cty. Sch. Dist., 83 F. Supp. 3d 1300 (M.D. Ga.
(c) Title IX claim: Plaintiff has also brought a cause of action against Defendant WCSD
U.S.C. § 1681 – 1688; 20 U.S.C. § 1681(a); Davis Next Friend LaShonda D. v. Monroe
Cty. Bd. of Educ., 526 U.S. 629, 119 S. Ct. 1661 (1999); Doe v. Erskine Coll., No.
CIV.A. 8:04-23001RBH, 2006 WL 1473853, at *11 (D.S.C. May 25, 2006); Jennings
v. University of North Carolina, 340 F.Supp .2d 666, 673 (M.D.N.C.2004), aff'd, 444
F.3d 255 (4th Cir.2006); Meritor Sav. Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57, 106 S.Ct. 2399, 91
L.Ed.2d 49 (1986).
Plaintiff anticipates there is additional statutory and case law to support her position and
theories based on specific facts to be determined in discovery. Accordingly, Plaintiff reserve the
Defendants’ position:
(a) The individual Defendants are entitled to have this action dismissed on the grounds
lawfulness and constitutionality of their actions, and the alleged wrongful conduct did
5
4:18-cv-02270-DCC Date Filed 11/21/18 Entry Number 10 Page 6 of 8
not violate clearly settled law or established rights. The conduct of the individual
Defendants was lawful, justified, and made in good-faith. See DiMeglio v. Haines,
(b) Plaintiffs’ claims for punitive damages are subject to, limited by, and governed by
the due process clause of the United States Constitution. See, e.g., Baker v. Runyon,
114 F.3d 668 (7th Cir. 1997); Terry v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 128 (2nd Cir. 2003); Schley
(d) At all times relevant to the Complaint, Defendants acted within the scope of their
employment official duties and are immune from individual liability under the South
(e) To the extent that Plaintiff seeks recovery under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, her claims are
barred because no official policy or custom of Defendant School District played any
part in the alleged constitutional violation, which is expressly denied. See Dennis v.
(f) Any injury claimed to have been sustained by Plaintiff was not proximately caused
by an act of Defendants, but rather was due to the intervening, independent, and
intentional act of a third person; said act being the sole, proximate and direct cause of
Defendants anticipate there is additional statutory and case law to support their legal
Defendants reserve the right to rely upon such additional authority as this case proceeds.
5. Absent special instructions from the assigned judge, the parties shall propose dates
6
4:18-cv-02270-DCC Date Filed 11/21/18 Entry Number 10 Page 7 of 8
b. Completion of discovery.
RESPONSE: Counsel for the respective parties have agreed to the revisions to the
proposed Scheduling Order, which is being submitted to the Honorable Judge Bryan Harwell.
6. The parties shall inform the Court whether there are any special circumstances
which would affect the time frame supplied in preparing the scheduling order.
RESPONSE: At the current time, counsel for the parties are not aware of any proposed
deadlines which would impact the ability to complete discovery and be prepared for trial as noted
in the proposed Amended Scheduling Order submitted for the Court’s review.
7. The parties shall provide any additional information requested in the pre-scheduling
Respectfully submitted,
S/Matthew T. Douglas
Matthew T. Douglas
Fed. I.D. No. 10091
KNIGHT & WHITTINGTON, LLC
207 East Third North Street
Summerville, South Carolina 29483
P: (843) 821-9700
F: (843) 821-0031
mdouglas@knightwhittington.com
7
4:18-cv-02270-DCC Date Filed 11/21/18 Entry Number 10 Page 8 of 8
Respectfully submitted,
S/Vernie Williams
Vernie Williams
Fed. I.D. 7094
HALLIGAN MAHONEY & WILLIAMS, PA
1301 Gervais St., #900
Columbia, South Carolina 29201
P: (803) 254-4035
F: (803) 771-4422
vwilliams@hmwlegal.com