govinfo:USCOURTS-tnmd-3_25-cv-01301-0

1 
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE, NASHVILLE DIVISION 
MARK McDONALD, ) 
NANETTE McDONALD, and ) 
MADELEINE McDONALD, ) 
) 
Plaintiffs, ) 
) 
v. ) No. 3:25-cv-1301 
) 
CITY OF OAK HILL, ) 
) 
Defendant. ) 
DEFENDANT’S SECOND/REFILED MOTION TO AMEND ANSWER 
The Defendant, the City of Oak Hill, Tennessee, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a), hereby 
refiles its motion (Doc. 27) to amend its Answer (Doc. 12) and, in support of its refiled motion, 
states as follows: 
1. Previously in this litigation, the Plaintiffs raised issues with the Defendant’s Answer in
certain of their filings 
2. Among the issues raised by the Plaintiffs were that the Defendant stated in its Answer
that a particular document or statute “speaks for itself” and that an allegation called for “a legal 
conclusion.” Plaintiffs also took issue with certain responses that disclaimed sufficient knowledge 
to admit or deny an allegation of the Complaint. 
3. In keeping with case law reviewed in formulating its response, the Defendant offered to
amend its Answer and filed a motion in that regard. The motion sought three weeks to submit a 
proposed Amended Answer, explaining that significant legal research and review would be 
necessary. 
Motion GRANTED. PageID #: <pageID>

Passage view · GavelSight