Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-00406/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-00406-14/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

S.O. a minor, by and through Guardian Ad 

Litem, LOLITA O’NEAL,

Plaintiff,

v.

RESCUE UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT, et 

al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:23-cv-00406 DJC AC

ORDER

The First Amended Complaint alleges that plaintiff was subjected to physical and sexual 

abuse from other students as a disabled first-grade student at Green Valley Elementary School in

the Rescue Union School District (“RUSD”). ECF No. 12. Plaintiff contends among other things 

that RUSD and various of its employees failed to take appropriate action to intervene and prevent 

recurrence of the abuse. Id. On November 17, 2023, the undersigned granted plaintiff’s motion 

to compel discovery and ordered RUSD to produce certain student files subject to the applicable 

protective order. ECF No. 24. The court subsequently clarified that the student files at issue 

must be produced in unredacted form. ECF Nos. 37 (minute order), 45 (written order), 56 (order 

of district judge denying defendants’ motion for reconsideration). Production was later stayed, 

ECF No. 63, and a process was established by which the parents of students whose files were 

subject to disclosure would be notified and provided an opportunity to object, and the court would 

Case 2:23-cv-00406-DJC-AC Document 75 Filed 01/16/25 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

consider any objections and review the subject documents in camera before ruling on their 

disclosure. ECF No. 71. The objections and related unredacted documents have been submitted

to chambers for consideration. See ECF No. 72.

The court has conducted the contemplated in camera review of objections, and rules as 

follows:

1. The following documents shall be disclosed to plaintiff’s counsel pursuant to the 

protective order on an “attorney’s eyes only” basis, over the objections of the subject 

students’ parents, based on the court’s finding of relevance: Exhibit C; Exhibit H, 

Bates Nos. 672-673, 8459, 8463-8464 (Sibling 1) only;

2. Plaintiff’s pending request for production is denied as moot as to the document at 

Bates Nos. 1441-1442 (the subject of Objection Nos. 30 and 40); and

3. Parental objections to disclosure of all other records submitted to the court are 

sustained based on the court’s findings that the documents lack relevance to overcome 

the students’ privacy interests. Of the documents submitted for review, only those 

identified in paragraph 1, above, must be produced pursuant to the court’s previous 

orders.

DATED: January 15, 2025

Case 2:23-cv-00406-DJC-AC Document 75 Filed 01/16/25 Page 2 of 2