Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-03471/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-03471-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 20:1401 Education: Handicapped Child Act

---

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 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

MORGAN HILL CONCERNED 

PARENTS ASSOCIATION, an 

unincorporated association, and 

CONCERNED PARENTS 

ASSOCIATION, an unincorporated 

association, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF 

EDUCATION, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:11-cv-03471-KJM-AC 

ORDER 

 On December 17, 2014, this court issued an order, directing the parties “to engage 

in meaningful meet and confer and file a joint report with the court . . . , identifying procedures to 

ensure that discovery proceeds as efficiently and promptly as possible.” (Order at 2, ECF No. 

85.) In the same order, the court also vacated all dates previously set and stated it would set a 

new schedule after evaluating the parties’ joint report. (Id. at 3.) The parties filed their joint 

report on January 16, 2015, after obtaining an extension. (ECF No. 89.) While the parties 

identify their purported experts, and say generally that they will make their experts “available” to 

each other, their report discloses a continuing inability to reach an agreement on discovery 

procedures and practices. This inability appears to stem from a continuing inability to engage in 

Case 2:11-cv-03471-KJM-AC Document 91 Filed 02/10/15 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

meaningful meet and confer. For example, an exchange of letters by counsel as a court deadline 

approaches reflects the absence of meaningful meet and confer efforts. See, e.g., id. at 5. Despite 

the representation that technical experts will be made available to the opposing party, there is no 

indication that the experts identified have engaged in any actual discussion of software or other 

electronic tools whose application may resolve the parties’ disputes, including those reviewed in 

the joint report. Moreover, the failure of the parties to resolve the notice or redaction issue, which 

the court previously had ordered resolved by May 2014, is impeding the progress of discovery 

and this case in general. 

 Accordingly, the court orders the parties to meet in person at least twice in the next 

twenty-one (21) days in order to develop a new joint report reflecting that they have: 

(1) exhausted meaningful meet and confer efforts regarding whether notice or 

redaction is required by the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act 

(FERPA) and related statutes, despite plaintiffs’ representation that they do not 

need to know students’ personal identifying information, including names; and 

(2) reviewed in detail the discovery both parties currently anticipate propounding 

and producing, and methods for streamlining the production required by the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

 At their meetings, the parties and their experts must review in particular plaintiffs’ 

past requests to review defendant’s databases unaltered and in their native format so they can 

efficiently conduct data mining. Through the meetings, and followup meetings and telephone 

discussions as needed, the parties must develop a detailed plan and schedule for future fact 

discovery in this case, setting forth any proposed phasing of fact discovery and proposing dates 

by which each phase will be completed. If the parties are not able to fully resolve the question of 

notice or redaction, they shall include in the proposed discovery plan a date, within thirty (30) 

days of the plan’s filing in the form of a joint report, by which defendant will file a motion 

proposing a method for resolution of this threshold dispute; any such motion shall be set for 

hearing on this court’s regular civil and law motion calendar, on the earliest date possible allowed 

by the applicable civil rules. 

Case 2:11-cv-03471-KJM-AC Document 91 Filed 02/10/15 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

 The joint report ordered above shall be filed within thirty (30) days of the filed 

date of this order, and shall include a concise summary identifying the persons who attended the 

two meetings and the length of the meetings, any further followup meetings, and describing 

generally the meeting agendas and efforts to resolve the disputes. 

 Until this court approves a new fact discovery schedule for the case, the parties 

shall refrain from filing or proceeding on any discovery motions before the magistrate judge. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: February 9, 2015. 

Case 2:11-cv-03471-KJM-AC Document 91 Filed 02/10/15 Page 3 of 3