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

Plaintiff, 

v. 

RESCUE UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT, et 

al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:23-cv-00406 DJC AC 

ORDER 

This matter is before the court on plaintiff’s motion to compel. ECF No. 20. This 

discovery motion was referred to the undersigned pursuant to E.D. Cal. R. 302(c)(1). The parties 

filed the required joint statement (ECF No. 23), and the motion was taken under submission (ECF 

No. 21). For the reasons stated below, plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED. 

I. Relevant Background 

Plaintiff filed this action on March 3, 2023 (ECF No. 1) and filed the operative amended 

complaint on April 17, 2023. ECF No. 12. Plaintiff, through guardian ad litem Lolita O’Neal, 

alleges violations of state and federal law arising from alleged physical and sexual abuse suffered 

District as a disabled first-grade student while attending Green Valley Elementary School within 

the Rescue Union School. ECF No. 12 at 2. Plaintiff sues the District (“RUSD”) and several of 

its employees. Id. The incidents giving rise to the complaint arose during the 2021-2022 school 

Case 2:23-cv-00406-DJC-AC Document 24 Filed 11/17/23 Page 1 of 12
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 

year. Id. at 3. Plaintiff alleges she was repeatedly bullied, sexually harassed, and sexually 

assaulted by multiple students. Id. One student in particular, “E.H.,” allegedly took plaintiff to 

an unsupervised area of campus, told her he was assaulting her because she was a new girl, held 

her down, and sexually molested her by fondling her and inserting a foreign object into her 

genitals. Id. Plaintiff alleges E.H. perpetrated similar acts of sexual misconduct against other 

victims while he was given unsupervised access to female students for extended periods of time. 

Id. at 3-4. Plaintiff alleges that defendants were each on notice of E.H.’s propensities to bully and 

sexually harass peers, but failed to act or intervene to prevent recurrence. Id. 

II. Motion 

Plaintiff asks the court to compel responses to multiple requests for production. The 

motion presents three separate disputes: (1) whether defendants are improperly withholding 

documents based on the California Education Code §49075, 49061, 49076(a) and the Family 

Educational Rights and Privacy Act (“FERPA”) 20 USC §1232(g) et seq.; 34 CFR §99.2, et seq.; 

(2) whether defendants must produce personnel files for the individual defendants; and (3) 

whether defendants must produce documents related to evidence of student bullying, sexual 

harassment, and assault on district campuses beyond the one plaintiff attended, from 2018 to 

present. ECF No. 12 at 3-23. 

III. Discussion 

A. Legal Standard for Motion to Compel 

The scope of discovery in federal cases is governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

26(b)(1). The Rule states: 

Unless otherwise limited by court order, the scope of discovery is as 

follows: Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged 

matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense and 

proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of 

the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the 

parties’ relative access to relevant information, the parties’ resources, 

the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether 

the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely 

benefit. Information within this scope of discovery need not be 

admissible in evidence to be discoverable. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Evidence is relevant if: (a) it has any tendency to make a fact more or 

Case 2:23-cv-00406-DJC-AC Document 24 Filed 11/17/23 Page 2 of 12
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 

less probable than it would be without the evidence; and (b) the fact is of consequence in 

determining the action.” Fed. R. Evid. 401. Relevancy to the subject matter of the litigation “has 

been construed broadly to encompass any matter that bears on, or that reasonably could lead to 

other matter that could bear on, any issue that is or may be in the case.” Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. 

v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 351 (1978). Relevance, however, does not establish discoverability; in 

2015, a proportionality requirement was added to Rule 26. Under the amended Rule 26, 

relevance alone will not justify discovery; discovery must also be proportional to the needs of the 

case. 

A party seeking to compel discovery has the initial burden to establish that its request is 

proper under Rule 26(b)(1). If the request is proper, the party resisting discovery has the burden 

of showing why discovery was denied; they must clarify and support their objections. 

Blankenship v. Hearst Corp., 519 F.2d 418, 429 (9th Cir.1975). General or boilerplate objections, 

without explanation, are not prohibited but are insufficient as a sole basis for an objection or 

privilege claim. Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Ry. v. United States Dist. Court, 408 F.3d 1142, 

1149 (9th Cir.2005). 

B. Documents Withheld Based on FERPA and the Education Code Must Be Produced 

The following requests for production are at issue with respect to this portion of the 

discovery dispute: 

PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST NO. 1: 

WRITINGS and ESI RELATING TO Plaintiff S.O., including but 

not limited to photographs, her cumulative file, special education 

file, confidential file, nurse’s notes, counseling notes, incident 

reports, injury reports, check-in-sheets, behavior data, observations, 

assessments, referrals, MDT reports, logs, graphs, and/or charts, raw 

data and/or any other data, notes or information maintained in a 

database. 

DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 1: 

Defendant agrees to produce those records within its possession as 

requested excepting therefrom any reports referencing any other 

students or communications with counsel or impressions of counsel 

as such information is confidential pursuant to California Education 

Code §49075, 49061, 49076(a) as well as Family Educational Rights 

and Privacy Act (FERPA) 20 USC §1232(g) et seq.; 34 CFR §99.2, 

Case 2:23-cv-00406-DJC-AC Document 24 Filed 11/17/23 Page 3 of 12
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 

4 

et seq., as well as the attorney/client privilege and attorney workproduct doctrine. 

PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST NO. 3: 

WRITINGS and ESI REFLECTING YOUR INVESTIGATION of 

Plaintiff S.O.’s REPORT(S) of SEXUAL HARASSMENT at any 

time during her time on YOUR Green Valley Elementary School 

campus. 

PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST NO. 4: 

WRITINGS and ESI REFLECTING YOUR INVESTIGATION of 

Plaintiff S.O.’s REPORT(S) of BULLYING at any time during her 

time on YOUR Green Valley Elementary School campus. 

DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 3 and 4: 

Construing this request to refer to the allegations of the sexual assault 

of student S.O., Defendant agrees to produce those records within its 

possession as requested excepting therefrom any reports referencing 

any other students or communications with counsel or impressions 

of counsel as such information is confidential pursuant to California 

Education Code §49075, 49061, 49076(a) as well as Family 

Educational Rights and Privacy Act (“FERPA”) 20 USC §1232(g) et 

seq.; 34 CFR §99.2, et seq., as well as the attorney/client privilege 

and attorney work-product doctrine. Furthermore, Defendant is 

aware of a series of emails from Lolita O’Neal to Michelle Winberg, 

however those emails are encrypted by the sender and cannot be 

printed, or forwarded, and equally available to the propounding party 

insofar as the emails were originally sent by Plaintiff. Other 

responsive documents will be produced by Defendant. 

PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST NO. 5: 

WRITINGS and ESI, RELATED TO student “E.H.” (the alleged 

perpetrator), including but not limited to photographs, his cumulative 

file, special education file, confidential file, nurse’s notes, counseling 

notes, incident reports, check in sheets, injury reports, behavior data, 

observations, assessments, referrals, MDT reports, logs, graphs, 

and/or charts, raw data and/or any other data, notes or information 

maintained in a database. 

DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 5: 

Objection. This request is vague, ambiguous, and overbroad as 

phrased. Without waiving said objections, the request also violates 

California Education Code §49075, 49061, 49076(a) as well as the 

Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (“FERPA”) 34 CFR 

§99.2, et seq.; 20 USC §1232(g). Responding party has sent a written 

request to the parents of the student identified as “E.H.” regarding 

this request to determine if they will agree to release the requested 

records. As of this date, no authorization has been received. 

Case 2:23-cv-00406-DJC-AC Document 24 Filed 11/17/23 Page 4 of 12
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 

5 

PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST NO. 10: 

For the period 2018 to present, WRITINGS and ESI RELATED TO 

COMPLAINT(S) or reports ALLEGING student SEXUAL 

HARASSMENT on any of YOUR campuses. 

DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 10: 

Objection. This request for production is not reasonably nor 

specifically tailored to seek production of discoverable or admissible 

evidence. The request as drafted is impermissibly overbroad and will 

impose an undue burden on responding party, its resources and 

personnel, to have it search for records that would in no way be 

relevant to Plaintiff’s claims in this lawsuit. Moreover, this request 

may violate confidentiality afforded to pupil records pursuant to 

California Education Code §49075, §49061, §49076(a) as well as 

Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (“FERPA”) 20 USC 

§1232(g) et seq.; CFR §99.2 et seq., as well as the attorney/client 

privilege and attorney work-product doctrine. Without waiving the 

foregoing objections, Defendant agrees to produce records 

responsive to this request limited to Green Valley Elementary 

School, with redactions to protect pupil identities. 

PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST NO. 11: 

For the period 2018 to present, WRITINGS and ESI RELATED TO 

COMPLAINT(S) or reports ALLEGING student BULLYING on 

any of YOUR campuses. 

DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 11: 

Objection. This request for production is not reasonably nor 

specifically tailored to seek production of discoverable or admissible 

evidence. The request as drafted is impermissibly overbroad and will 

impose an undue burden on responding party, its resources and 

personnel, to have it search for records that would in no way be 

relevant to Plaintiff’s claims in this lawsuit. Moreover, this request 

may violate confidentiality afforded to pupil records pursuant to 

California Education Code §49075, §49061, §49076(a) as well as 

Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (“FERPA”) 20 USC 

§1232(g) et seq.; CFR §99.2 et seq., as well as the attorney/client 

privilege and attorney work-product doctrine. Without waiving the 

foregoing objections, Defendant agrees to produce documents 

responsive to allegations of bullying limited to Green Valley 

Elementary School for the subject time period of this request. 

PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST NO. 19: 

For the period 2018 to present, WRITINGS and ESI RELATED TO 

any COMPLAINT involving “E.H.” 

DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 19: 

Objection. This request is vague and ambiguous as phrased. Without 

waiving said objections, the request also violates California 

Case 2:23-cv-00406-DJC-AC Document 24 Filed 11/17/23 Page 5 of 12
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 

6 

Education Code §49075, 49061, 49076(a) as well as the Family 

Educational Rights and Privacy Act (“FERPA”) 34 CFR §99.2, et 

seq.; 20 USC §1232(g). Notwithstanding said objections, despite a 

reasonable and diligent search, responding party is unable to locate 

any document other than those related to the complaint in this action, 

as no other such document exists. 

PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST NO. 22: 

For the period 2018 to present, WRITINGS and ESI REFLECTING 

YOUR INVESTIGATION of COMPLAINT(S) ALLEGING 

student SEXUAL HARASSMENT at YOUR Green Valley 

Elementary School campus. 

PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST NO. 23: 

For the period 2018 to present, WRITINGS and ESI REFLECTING 

YOUR INVESTIGATION of COMPLAINT(S) ALLEGING 

student BULLYING at YOUR Green Valley Elementary School 

campus. 

PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST NO. 24: 

For the period 2018 to present, WRITINGS and ESI REFLECTING 

YOUR INVESTIGATION of COMPLAINT(S) ALLEGING 

inadequate student supervision at YOUR Green Valley Elementary 

School campus. 

DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO REQUEST NOS. 22, 23, and 24: 

Objection. This request for production is impermissibly overbroad as 

to time. This request is vague and ambiguous as phrased. Without 

waiving said objections, the request also violates California 

Education Code §49075, 49061, 49076(a) as well as the Family 

Educational Rights and Privacy Act (“FERPA”) 34 CFR §99.2, et 

seq.; 20 USC §1232(g). Notwithstanding said objections, despite a 

reasonable and diligent search, responding party is unable to locate 

any document other than the Complaint in this action, as no other 

such document exists. 

Congress enacted FERPA to protect the privacy of students and their parents. The law 

conditions the receipt of federal funding by educational institutions or agencies on their 

compliance with certain procedures concerning the maintenance of student educational records 

and restricting release of student educational records to third parties without parental consent. 

See 20 U.S.C. § 1232g; Morgan Hill Concerned Parents Ass’n v. California Dep’t of Educ., No. 

2:11-CV-03471-KJM-AC, 2015 WL 10939711, at *3 (E.D. Cal. July 2, 2015). “The consent 

requirement is subject to several exceptions. The most relevant exception to this action allows for 

disclosure without consent if disclosure is to comply with a judicial order or subpoena and the 

Case 2:23-cv-00406-DJC-AC Document 24 Filed 11/17/23 Page 6 of 12
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 

7 

educational institution has made a reasonable effort at notification. 34 C.F.R. § 99.31(a)(9).” 

Morgan Hill, 2015 WL 10939711 at *3. 

“FERPA does not create an evidentiary privilege and documents protected by FERPA are 

discoverable in the context of civil litigation.” Cherry v. Clark County Sch. Dist., No. 2:11-CV01783-JCM, 2012 WL 4361101, at *5 (D. Nev. Sept. 21, 2012) (citing Garza v. Scott and White 

Memorial Hosp., 234 F.R.D. 617, 624 (W.D. Tex. 2005)). The relevant Education Code sections 

were specifically adopted in California “to eliminate potential conflicts between FERPA and state 

law” and therefore where FERPA is satisfied, the Education Code is also satisfied. Doe v. 

Manhattan Beach Unified Sch. Dist., No. CV 19-06962-DDP-RAOx, 2020 WL 11271845, at *5 

(C.D. Cal. Oct. 20, 2020) at *5 (citing BRV Inc. v. Superior Court, 143 Cal. App. 4th 742, 752 

(2006)). 

All requested documents withheld on the basis of FERPA and the Education Code must 

be produced. The records are clearly relevant to the claims in this case, and their disclosure 

pursuant to a court order does not run afoul of FERPA. Indeed, defendants acknowledge that 

“both FERPA and the California Education Code prohibit production of pupil records or 

information without written authorization by an identified student’s parent or legal guardian, or a 

Court order.” ECF No. 23 at 16 (emphasis added). Concerns regarding privacy are addressed by 

the existing Protective Order. ECF No. 20-1. 

To comply with FERPA while making a production of student records pursuant to a court 

order, an institution is only required to notify the relevant parents or guardians in advance of the 

disclosure. 20 U.S.C. §1232g(b)(2)(B). The undersigned agrees that the most expeditious way to 

move forward in this case is for the court to issue an order regarding FERPA to address both the 

discovery dispute at bar and prevent discovery disputes going forward. The court therefore 

adopts plaintiff’s proposal of a process wherein, within 10 days of identifying a student’s records 

as responsive to discovery requests served in this case, RUSD will notify the student’s parents or 

guardians before producing the records subject to the Protective Order applicable to this case. 

ECF No. 20-1. This shall be the process applied to the requests for production at bar and all 

//// 

Case 2:23-cv-00406-DJC-AC Document 24 Filed 11/17/23 Page 7 of 12
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 

8 

requests for production implicating student files and documents going forward. The motion to 

compel is granted on this point. 

C. Defendants Must Produce Personnel Files 

The following requests for production are at issue with respect to this portion of the 

discovery dispute: 

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8: 

For the period of Defendant LAURA HENDRIX’S employment with 

YOU, her complete personnel file, human resources file(s), 

administrator file(s), credential(s), certification(s), endorsement(s), 

schedules, timecards, performance reviews, evaluations, write-ups, 

observations, reprimands, COMPLAINTS, ALLEGATIONS, 

disciplinary records, memo(s), notes, emails, transcripts, training 

material, employment application, resume, references, notes, emails 

recommendations, settlements, and/or any agreements between YOU 

and HENDRIX. 

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 9: 

For the period of Defendant DUSTIN HALEY’S employment with 

YOU, her complete personnel file, human resources file(s), 

administrator file(s), credential(s), certification(s), endorsement(s), 

schedules, timecards, performance reviews, evaluations, write-ups, 

observations, reprimands, COMPLAINTS, ALLEGATIONS, 

disciplinary records, memo(s), notes, emails, transcripts, training 

material, employment application, resume, references, notes, emails, 

recommendations, settlements, and/or any agreements between YOU 

and HALEY. 

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NOS. 8 and 9: 

Objection. This request for production violates the right of privacy 

of the identified defendant, is impermissibly overbroad and is not 

specifically tailored to seek production of records from the 

Defendant’s personnel files that may be pertinent to Plaintiff’s 

allegations. However, to the extent that this request seeks 

employment records not related to Plaintiff’s allegations nor material 

to any issue in this case, the request invades the Defendant’s 

Constitutional Right of Privacy; BRV, Inc. v. Superior Court (2006) 

143 Cal.App.4th 742, 756-757. As this defendant’s employment 

record with the District is immaterial to Plaintiff’s claims, his right 

of privacy will not be waived. 

The right of privacy is not bar to discovery; instead, the court must balance the need for 

the information against the claimed privacy right. Stallworth v. Brollini, 288 F.R.D. 444 (N.D. 

Cal. 2012). Indeed, defendants acknowledge that a “balancing approach in federal court is 

consistent with California law[.]” ECF No. 23 at 20 (citing BRV, Inc. v. Superior Court, 143 

Case 2:23-cv-00406-DJC-AC Document 24 Filed 11/17/23 Page 8 of 12
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 

9 

Cal.App.4th 742, 752 (2009)). Defendants have already produced the personnel file of plaintiff’s 

school principal, Michelle Winberg, on the grounds that “she has actual campus supervisory 

responsibility and her ‘negligence’ as well as her hiring, training and retention could conceivably 

be at issue for the first and second causes of action.” ECF No. 23 at 20. However, defendants 

refuse to produce the files of individual defendants “Hendrix or Haley because they are district 

level employees, do not perform supervision of students at Green Valley Elementary School and 

their employment records are not potentially relevant to Plaintiff’s claims of negligent 

supervision at Green Valley Elementary or negligent hiring, supervision or retention related to 

Plaintiff’s claims of negligent supervision.” ECF No. 23 at 20. 

 The court agrees with plaintiff that the personnel records of Hendrix and Haley are 

relevant, and that any privacy concerns are both addressed by the existing protective order and 

outweighed by plaintiff’s need for the responsive documents. ECF No. 20-1. Hendrix and Haley 

are parties to this case, as is their employer, the District. Hendrix was employed as Director of 

Special Education and Student Support Services, and Haley was employed as the Director of 

Curriculum and Instruction. ECF No. 12 at 2. Plaintiff specifically alleges that Hendrix and 

Haley, mandated reporters responsible for student supervision, negligently failed to institute 

and/or implement policies and procedures to accumulate, retain, categorize, track, and emphasize 

all adverse information relating to any student’s inappropriate behavior towards other students at 

the school and to promptly notify parents and law enforcement upon any reasonable suspicion of 

child abuse being perpetrated on the premises. ECF No. 12 at 6. Their personnel files may 

contain information directly relevant to the claims against them. Defendant’s argument that the 

privacy balance favors plaintiff as to Winberg’s file but not as to the files of other named 

defendants is not persuasive or logical; each individual defendant is implicated in plaintiff’s 

claims. The motion to compel is granted on this point. 

D. District-Wide Evidence of Bullying, Sexual Harassment and Assault is Relevant 

The following requests for production are at issue with respect to this portion of the 

discovery dispute: 

//// 

Case 2:23-cv-00406-DJC-AC Document 24 Filed 11/17/23 Page 9 of 12
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 

10 

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10: 

For the period 2018 to present, WRITINGS and ESI RELATED TO 

COMPLAINT(S) or reports ALLEGING student SEXUAL 

HARASSMENT on any of YOUR campuses. 

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10: 

Objection. This request for production is not reasonably nor 

specifically tailored to seek production of discoverable or admissible 

evidence. The request as drafted is impermissibly overbroad and will 

impose an undue burden on responding party, its resources and 

personnel, to have it search for records that would in no way be 

relevant to Plaintiff’s claims in this lawsuit. Moreover, this request 

may violate confidentiality afforded to pupil records pursuant to 

California Education Code §49075, §49061, §49076(a) as well as 

Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (“FERPA”) 20 USC 

§1232(g) et seq.; CFR §99.2 et seq., as well as the attorney/client 

privilege and attorney work-product doctrine. Without waiving the 

foregoing objections, Defendant agrees to produce records 

responsive to this request limited to Green Valley Elementary 

School, with redactions to protect pupil identities. 

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11: 

For the period 2018 to present, WRITINGS and ESI RELATED TO 

COMPLAINT(S) or reports ALLEGING student BULLYING on 

any of YOUR campuses. 

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11: 

Objection. This request for production is not reasonably nor 

specifically tailored to seek production of discoverable or admissible 

evidence. The request as drafted is impermissibly overbroad and will 

impose an undue burden on responding party, its resources and 

personnel, to have it search for records that would in no way be 

relevant to Plaintiff’s claims in this lawsuit. Moreover, this request 

may violate confidentiality afforded to pupil records pursuant to 

California Education Code §49075, §49061, §49076(a) as well as 

Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (“FERPA”) 20 USC 

§1232(g) et seq.; CFR §99.2 et seq., as well as the attorney/client 

privilege and attorney work-product doctrine. Without waiving the 

foregoing objections, Defendant agrees to produce documents 

responsive to allegations of bullying limited to Green Valley 

Elementary School for the subject time period of this request. 

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 17: 

For the period 2018 to present, all WRITINGS related to training that 

YOU provided to employees REGARDING student supervision. 

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 20: 

For the period 2018 to present, WRITINGS and ESI REFLECTING 

YOUR policies, practices and procedures for tracking REPORTS of 

Case 2:23-cv-00406-DJC-AC Document 24 Filed 11/17/23 Page 10 of 12
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 

11 

student SEXUAL HARASSMENT. 

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 21: 

For the period 2018 to present, WRITINGS and ESI REFLECTING 

YOUR policies, practices and procedures for tracking REPORTS of 

student BULLYING. 

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 17, 20, and 21: 

Responding party agrees to produce those records pertinent to Green 

Valley Elementary School for the year in which responding party 

attended that school and alleges she was sexually assaulted. To any 

other degree, the document request is not specifically tailored to seek 

production of materials relevant to Plaintiff’s claims, and therefore 

imposes an undue burden upon responding party, its staff and 

resources to locate records that may in no way involve Plaintiff’s 

allegations. 

Plaintiff argues that the District has improperly limited the scope of its response to 

Requests for reports of student bullying, sexual harassment, and assault, to a single campus 

during a single school year. Defendants respond with the conclusory argument that provision of 

documents related to “campuses that Plaintiff never attended during the key time frame, goes 

beyond the scope of the First Amended Complaint and is not proportional to her claims.” ECF 

No. 23 at 19. 

 The court finds the requested discovery both relevant and proportional to the allegations in 

the operative First Amended Complaint. Evidence of RUSD’s response to earlier reports of 

student sexual assault, harassment and bullying on its campuses go to plaintiff’s ability to 

establish notice and prove the District had a history of failing to adequately document, investigate 

or respond to student bullying and sexual harassment in violation of students’ rights. There is no 

other means for plaintiff to obtain this evidence. The court agrees with plaintiff that this 

information is relevant to the claims and goes to the District’s notice and awareness of 

widespread misconduct occurring on its campuses. The motion is granted on this point. 

 IV. Conclusion 

For the reasons explained above, the court orders that the motion to compel (ECF No. 20) 

is GRANTED in its entirety. For discovery going forward implicating student files, it is 

ORDERED that documents shall not be withheld based on FERPA alone. Instead, within 10 days 

Case 2:23-cv-00406-DJC-AC Document 24 Filed 11/17/23 Page 11 of 12
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 

12 

of identifying a student’s records as responsive to discovery requests served in this case, RUSD 

will notify the student’s parents or guardians before producing the records subject to the 

Protective Order applicable to this case. 

DATED: November 16, 2023 

Case 2:23-cv-00406-DJC-AC Document 24 Filed 11/17/23 Page 12 of 12