KIMBERLIN v. METROPOLITAN SCHOOL DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON TOWNSHIP SCHOOLS ET AL

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
BRETT KIMBERLIN, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	No. 1:25-cv-01047-TWP-MJD
)
METROPOLITAN SCHOOL DISTRICT OF
WASHINGTON TOWNSHIP SCHOOLS,
)
)
BOARD OF METROPOLITAN SCHOOL
DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON TOWNSHIP
SCHOOLS,
)
)
)
DR. NIKKI WOODSON Superintendent, in her
individual and official capacity,
)
)
)
Defendants. 	)
ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S RULE 72 OBJECTION
This matter is before the Court on pro se Plaintiff Brett Kimberlin's ("Kimberlin")
Objection to the Magistrate Judge's Order Denying his Motion to Maintain Document Under Seal
(the "Objection") (Dkt. 40) filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72. For the reasons
explained below, Kimberlin's Objection is overruled, but the Court will allow him time to move to
withdraw the document at issue before the Clerk unseals it.
I. 	PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Kimberlin initiated this action against his former school district, the Metropolitan School
District of Washington Township (the "School District"), the School Board, and Superintendent
Nikki Woodson ("Dr. Woodson") (collectively, "Defendants"), alleging that he was sexually
abused by a teacher in middle school in the 1960s and that Defendants wrongfully refused to
investigate (Dkt. 1). In August 2025, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 20). On October
6, 2025, Kimberlin filed his response to the Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 28), along with a copy of a
letter (the "Letter") that Kimberlin mailed to Dr. Woodson in June 2024, detailing his abuse and
Case 1:25-cv-01047-TWP-MJD Document 43 Filed 04/03/26 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
seeking "acknowledgment and compensation" from the School District (Dkt. 30 at 3–8). Kimberlin
filed the Letter under seal and submitted a Motion to Maintain Document Under Seal (the "Motion
to Seal") (Dkt. 31) as required by the Court's Local Rules.
Kimberlin's non-dispositive Motion to Seal was referred to the Magistrate Judge, and in
February 2026, the Magistrate Judge denied the Motion (Dkt. 39). The Magistrate Judge explained:
Plaintiff's June 2024 letter to the School District's superintendent is of central
importance to this case; indeed, the Defendants' alleged response to the letter forms
the basis of Plaintiff's claims under Title IX and the Fourteenth Amendment.
Further, the general allegations set forth in the letter are currently a matter of public
record, as they are set forth in the unsealed Complaint in this case, and while
Plaintiff may wish to keep more specific details contained in the letter confidential
due to embarrassment or general privacy concerns, this is not good cause to deprive
the public of its right to access court filings.
The Court is mindful that Plaintiff is an alleged victim of sexual abuse, and it has
taken that factor into account in arriving at this ruling. But the Court has also
considered the public's interest in viewing documents that are material to the
outcome of court proceedings, the centrality of the letter to this case, and the fact
that Plaintiff's allegations of sexual abuse are already in the public record. Given
these circumstances, the Court finds that the balance of interests weighs in favor
[of] unsealing the letter.
(Dkt. 39 at 2–3). The next month, the Court ruled on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (among other
motions) (Dkt. 41). In ruling on the Motion to Dismiss, the Court did not consider the Letter, nor
could it have; except for a few circumstances not present here, courts may not review matters
outside the pleadings in ruling on a motion to dismiss. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(d).
Kimberlin timely filed his Objection to the Magistrate Judge's Order denying the Motion
to Seal the Letter, which is now ripe for the Court's review.
II. 	LEGAL STANDARD
A district court may refer for decision a non-dispositive pretrial motion to a magistrate
judge under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a). Rule 72(a) provides:
When a pretrial matter not dispositive of a party's claim or defense is referred to a
magistrate judge to hear and decide, the magistrate judge must promptly conduct
Case 1:25-cv-01047-TWP-MJD Document 43 Filed 04/03/26 Page 2 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
the required proceedings and, when appropriate, issue a written order stating the
decision. A party may serve and file objections to the order within 14 days after
being served with a copy. A party may not assign as error a defect in the order not
timely objected to. The district judge in the case must consider timely objections
and modify or set aside any part of the order that is clearly erroneous or is contrary
to law.
After reviewing objections to a magistrate judge's order, the district court will modify or
set aside the order only if it is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. The clear error standard is
highly differential, permitting reversal of the magistrate judge's ruling only when "the district court
is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made." Weeks v. Samsung
Heavy Indus. Co., 126 F.3d 926, 943 (7th Cir. 1997). "To be clearly erroneous, a decision must
strike [the court] as more than just maybe or probably wrong," and the court will not modify a
magistrate judge's non-dispositive, pretrial decision "simply because [it has] doubts about its
wisdom or think[s] [it] would have reached a different result." Parts & Elec. Motors, Inc. v. Sterling
Elec., Inc., 866 F.2d 228, 233 (7th Cir. 1988). "An order is contrary to law when it fails to apply
or misapplies relevant statutes, case law, or rules of procedure." Coley v. Landrum, No. 14-cv-956,
2016 WL 427518, at *1 (S.D. Ind. Feb. 4, 2016) (citation and quotation marks omitted).
III. 	DISCUSSION
A. 	Kimberlin's Objection
Kimberlin disagrees with the Magistrate Judge's conclusion that he did not show adequate
good cause for maintaining the Letter under seal (Dkt. 40 at 2–3). Kimberlin concedes that the
Letter is relevant but clarifies that he intended for the Court to consider the Letter only for purposes
of ruling on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. Kimberlin argues that public disclosure of the Letter
would be not only "embarrassing," as the Magistrate Judge noted, but also traumatizing. In support
of his Objection, Kimberlin cites recent efforts to seal court filings that contain sensitive
information about the victims of Jeffrey Epstein (Dkt. 40 at 2–4; Dkt. 40-1).
Case 1:25-cv-01047-TWP-MJD Document 43 Filed 04/03/26 Page 3 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
In ruling on the objection, the undersigned is limited to reviewing the Magistrate Judge's
Order for clear error or rulings contrary to law. Kimberlin disagrees with the Magistrate Judge's
assessment of how upsetting the unsealing of the Letter would be, and whether the public interest
outweighs Kimberlin's interest in privacy, but he does not explain how the Magistrate Judge's
assessment was clearly erroneous or contrary to law. The Magistrate Judge carefully balanced the
public's right of access to court filings, particularly filings of central importance to a case, against
Kimberlin's concerns. In denying the Motion to Seal, the Magistrate Judge remained "mindful that
Plaintiff is an alleged victim of sexual abuse, and [took] that factor into account in arriving at [his]
ruling." (Dkt. 39 at 3).
The Court sees no clear error or contravention of law in the Magistrate Judge's reasoning
or ruling. Further, Kimberlin's attempt to analogize this case to the Epstein cases is unavailing. In
those cases, the victims did not file the sensitive documents at issue. Here, Kimberlin himself
initiated this public lawsuit about his childhood abuse, mailed the Letter to Dr. Woodson, and then
the Letter in this Court. The Seventh Circuit has found that embarrassment alone, is not a sufficient
reason to seal its records. See Mitze v. Saul, 968 F.3d 689, 692 (7 th Cir. 2020), citing Kamakana v.
City & Cty. Of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006) (“[E]mbarrassment, incrimination,
or exposure to further litigation will not, without more, compel the court to seal its records.”).
Kimberlin has not shown that the Magistrate Judge's Order is clearly erroneous or contrary
to law, and the Court therefore overrules Kimberlin's Objection.
B. 	Leave to Move to Withdraw Letter
Kimberlin asks that if the Court overrules his objection, it grant him leave "to withdraw the
[Letter] and replace it with a sworn Declaration stating that the abuse took place on and off school
grounds." (Dkt. 40 at 4). This request is granted in part and denied in part. The Court grants
Kimberlin leave of fourteen (14) days from the date of this Entry to file a motion to withdraw the
Case 1:25-cv-01047-TWP-MJD Document 43 Filed 04/03/26 Page 4 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
Letter. The Court denies Kimberlin's request to file a replacement document. Documents may not
be maintained under seal simply because a party (or even both parties jointly) requests that the
documents remain sealed. The Court alone decides whether a filing should be maintained under
seal. Going forward, it is unlikely the Court will not permit Kimberlin to withdraw documents that
he unsuccessfully moves to maintain under seal. Motions to withdraw are typically reserved for
inadvertent filings. They may not be used to withdraw filings that a party simply wishes were no
longer part of the record or to circumvent orders denying motions to seal. Mr. Kimberlin should
be mindful of these admonishments when filing documents in the future.
IV. 	CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Kimberlin's Rule 72 Objection to the Magistrate Judge's Order
Denying the Motion to Maintain Document Under Seal Dkt. [40] is OVERRULED. The Clerk is
directed to unseal the Letter at Dkt. [30] after fourteen (14) days, unless a motion to withdraw
the Letter is filed by Kimberlin within that time.
SO ORDERED.
Date: 	4/3/2026
Distribution:
BRETT KIMBERLIN
8100 Beech Tree Road
Bethesda, MD 20817
Jonathan Lamont Mayes
BOSE MCKINNEY & EVANS, LLP (Indianapolis)
jmayes@boselaw.com
Case 1:25-cv-01047-TWP-MJD Document 43 Filed 04/03/26 Page 5 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>