SUMMARY
On September 14, 2026, Marsha W. Mignott asked a federal court for permission to supplement her response to the defendants’ renewed motion to dismiss. Her Document 53 attached, as Exhibit B (Document 53-2), the ADA Matters reproduction of a May 12, 2026 email from State Bar of Georgia Deputy General Counsel William D. NeSmith III.
Mignott is the plaintiff in a federal case against the State Bar of Georgia Foundation, Inc., the State Bar’s Office of the General Counsel and an assistant general counsel. Her race discrimination claims are allegations, not findings.
What is Exhibit B in the Mignott case?
Document 53, page 3, paragraph 7, filed September 14, 2026:
The correspondence was published on the public website ADA Matters, www.adamatters.com, by a third-party grievant who filed grievances with the State Bar’s Office of the General Counsel.
Pages 3 to 4 of the same filing:
Plaintiff located, retrieved, and preserved the relevant pages on or about September 3, 2026.
Document 53-1, which the docket labels “Exhibit A Supplemental Motion,” is a fifteen page proposed supplemental response. It names ADA Matters as the source on page 4.
Document 53-2 has two pages: a cover marked Exhibit B, then an image of the May 12 email as published on ADA Matters, with the site’s black bar redactions.
How did the defendants answer?
On September 28, 2026, counsel for the three defendants, Nall & Miller, LLP, filed Document 54 opposing the motion. Pages 4 and 9 use the word “unauthenticated.” Page 6 states:
Again, comments in an email in the context of a member of the public asking about accommodations pursuant to the Americans With Disabilities Act have no relevance to this matter.
Read Document 54 as published on ADA Matters.
What did the plaintiff say next?
On October 9, 2026, Mignott filed Document 56, a reply. Page 8:
Defendants call the correspondence “unauthenticated” and describe it as “purporting to be from” Mr. NeSmith. [citation omitted] They do not deny that he sent it, and they submit no declaration to that effect, though that fact lies uniquely within their knowledge.
Page 9:
Should the Court deem further authentication necessary, Plaintiff will promptly supply it.
These are the plaintiff’s words, not a court’s. I am not a party to this case, and I filed nothing in it.
Where does the record stand?
The latest filing I have read is Document 56, filed October 9, 2026. No ruling on Document 53 found through October 11, 2026, the date of my last PACER pull of the docket entries. Free court sources lag PACER, so I have verified nothing later. Document 55, an October 8 recusal order, does not decide Document 53. Neither side’s description of the email is a court ruling on its authenticity or significance.
Read the federal case timeline and the May 12 email as published on ADA Matters.