IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

EASTERN DIVISION

ANGELA PRICE, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) Civil Action No.

vs. )

 ) 3:06-cv-742-MEF

ROANOKE CITY BOARD OF EDUCATION, )

Defendant.

______________________________________________________________________________

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO CORRECT TYPOGRAPHICAL

ERRORS IN SUMMARY JUDGMENT BRIEF

Plaintiff moves the Court for leave to correct two typographical errors in her summary

judgment brief. Plaintiff states the following as grounds:

1. In response to Roanoke’s asserted fact number 5, there is a typographical error. The

asserted fact and plaintiff’s response, with the typographical error underlined, is set forth below:

Asserted Fact

5. Price attended a sexual harassment seminar given by the District on February 16,

1998. (Ex. 2, Price Depo. 23-25, 49.)

Response

5. Admitted not irrelevant: the policy in effect at that time was different from the

revised one that was in effect during the relevant events. (Marcum Depo. 76:22,

77:14, 94: 11-16; Ex. 7 to Marcum Depo. (last 2 pages)) The former policy provided

that sexual harassment be reported to the supervisor, whereas the later policy

provided that it be reported to Roanoke’s Title IX coordinator. (old policy- Ex. 7 to

Marcum Depo. (last 2 pages); new policy- Ex. 7 to Marcum Depo. (first 2 pages))

2. It is clear from the response, and in ensuing responses to Roanoke’s later factual assertions

and in argument, that “not irrelevant” should be instead “but irrelevant.” This is clear because the

response following the typographical error asserts that Roanoke’s harassment policy applicable

Case 3:06-cv-00742-MEF-WC Document 27 Filed 08/27/2007 Page 1 of 3
2

during the events of this case was dispositively different from the version applicable in 1998, as do

later passages in plaintiff’s brief. 

3. In response to Roanoke’s asserted fact number 24, there is a regrettably another

typographical error. The asserted fact and plaintiff’s response, with the typographical error

underlined, is set forth below:

Asserted Fact

24. The policy [regarding sexual harassment] appears in the District’s policy manual

and in the Student Handbook. (Ex. 3, Marcum Depo. 66, 76.)

Response

24. It is admitted that the policy is in the manual, but it is undisputed that the policy

is in the student handbook. The policy applicable to students is different from the

one applicable to employees. (Marcum Depo. 77:6-8; Ex. 7 to Marcum Depo)

4. “Undisputed” in the response above should instead be “disputed.” It is clear from the

response following the typographical error that plaintiff was asserting that the policy applicable to

employees, which is a completely different policy from the one applicable to students, was not in the

student handbook.

5. The undersigned apologizes for the errors but requests that they be corrected.

WHEREFORE, these premises considered, plaintiff moves the Court for leave to correct

the above referenced typographical errors in her summary judgment brief on the grounds stated.

Respectfully submitted,

/s Adam M. Porter

 Adam M. Porter

Attorney for Plaintiff

 2301 Morris Avenue, Suite 102

Birmingham, Alabama 35203

(205) 322-8999

Case 3:06-cv-00742-MEF-WC Document 27 Filed 08/27/2007 Page 2 of 3
3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on August 27, 2007 I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk

of the Court using the CM/ECF system, who will electronically provide a copy of the foregoing to

Donald B. Sweeney, Jr., Esq Bradley Arant Rose & White LLP One Federal Place 1819 Fifth

Avenue North Birmingham, AL 35203-2104 and that there are no non-CM/ECF participants in this

case to whom hard copies should be mailed.

/s Adam M. Porter 

Counsel for Plaintiff

Case 3:06-cv-00742-MEF-WC Document 27 Filed 08/27/2007 Page 3 of 3