Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-00406/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-00406-10/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 

Defendants seek reconsideration of Magistrate Judge Allison Claire’s April 10, 

2024 Order directing disclosure of relevant requested documents in unredacted form. 

Judge Claire previously ordered the production of the evidence at issue on 

November 17, 2023. (See ECF No. 24.) Defendants did not seek reconsideration of 

the initial order requiring disclosure within fourteen days. “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.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). 

Thus, to the extent Defendants now wish to object to the substance of that order, 

Defendants’ Motion is untimely and those arguments are waived. 

Case 2:23-cv-00406-DJC-AC Document 56 Filed 08/20/24 Page 1 of 3
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 

Judge Claire’s April 10, 2024 Order, for which Defendants are now seeking 

reconsideration, only concerns whether student information within those documents 

may be redacted. Judge Claire ordered that this evidence be disclosed in unredacted 

form, though permitted Defendants to mark those documents with an attorney’s eyes 

only designation. 

The Order was not clearly erroneous or contrary to law in finding that the 

identities of the was relevant to Plaintiff’s claims. Defendants misconstrue as a 

misstatement of the elements of Plaintiff’s claims Judge Claire’s statement that “the 

requested information is necessary to plaintiff’s ability to contact potential witnesses to 

RUSD’s patterns of conduct, which is an essential element of her case[,]” (ECF No. 45). 

This statement is made in the context of, and in reference to, Judge Claire’s prior 

finding that the information in this evidence was relevant. Judge Claire previously 

determined that “this information is relevant to the claims and goes to the District’s 

notice and awareness of widespread misconduct occurring on its campuses.” (ECF 

No. 24 at 11.) As acknowledged by both parties, the District’s actual knowledge of the 

discrimination and deliberate indifference to the harassment are elements of Plaintiff’s 

claims. See Reese v. Jefferson Sch. Dist. No. 14J, 208 F.3d 736, 739 (9th Cir. 2000). 

Judge Claire found that the identity of the individuals in the disclosed records was 

necessary to determine the District’s patterns of conduct which was relevant to 

knowledge of discrimination and deliberate indifference to the harassment.1 As 

stated by Judge Claire in the Order, “Plaintiff’s counsel needs access to names and 

contact information connected to reported incidents in order to discover whether 

common perpetrators or victims are involved across multiple incidents, what level of 

notice the district had, and how adequate or inadequate the district’s responses 

1

 Defendants argue that what other students experienced is not relevant to whether the District acted 

with deliberate indifference. (ECF No. 47 at 11.) This is outside the scope of the order for which 

Defendants presently seek reconsideration; Judge Claire already determined that such information was 

relevant in the November 17, 2023 Order. 

Case 2:23-cv-00406-DJC-AC Document 56 Filed 08/20/24 Page 2 of 3
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 

3 

were.” (ECF No. 45 at 5.) This is not clearly erroneous or contrary to law. See Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 72(a). 

Similarly, the Order is not clearly erroneous or contrary to law in weighing the 

relevance of the information against the privacy concerns of the third parties. Judge 

Claire has put in place a robust set of protections via the protective order (ECF Nos. 

17, 18), the order requiring disclosure (ECF No. 24), and the most recent order for 

which Defendants now seek reconsideration. As a result of those orders, when a 

student’s record is identified as responsive, parents and guardians must be notified in 

advance of the disclosure and responsive documents can be produced with an 

attorney’s eyes only designation. These protections seek to closely guard the 

sensitive information at issue. Given Judge Claire’s determination that this 

information was relevant to Plaintiff’s claims and the extensive protections in place, 

Judge Claire’s Order is not clearly erroneous or contrary to law in balancing the 

privacy concerns with the need for disclosure. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for 

reconsideration (ECF No. 47) is DENIED. 

Dated: August 19, 2024 

 THE HONORABLE DANIEL J. CALABRETTA 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 2:23-cv-00406-DJC-AC Document 56 Filed 08/20/24 Page 3 of 3