Wormuth et al v. Lammersville Union School District et al

Filing 61

ORDER AFTER HEARING signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 5/4/17: Plaintiffs' motion to compel is granted as to plaintiffs' Request for Production of Document Number 13. Plaintiffs' motion to compel is granted as to Request for Production of Documents Numbers 1 and 35. The court's prior order granting plaintiff's motion to compel further responses to Request for Production of Documents Number 21 is confirmed. (Kaminski, H)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13

ADRIANNA WORMUTH, SCOTT
WORMUTH and H.W., a minor, by and
through his guardians ad litem
ADRIANNA WORMUTH AND SCOTT
WORMUTH,

14

17
18

ORDER AFTER HEARING

Plaintiffs,

15
16

No. 2:15-cv-1572-KJM-EFB

v.
LAMMERSVILLE UNION SCHOOL
DISTRICT, JAMES YEAGER, DAWN
IBBS, TERESA HAUN, KIRK
NICHOLAS, and KHUSHWINDER GILL,
and DOES 1-30,

19

Defendants.

20
This case was before the court on May 3, 2017, for hearing on plaintiffs’ motion for

21
22

sanctions (ECF No. 51) and defendants’ request for reconsideration of the court’s April 11, 2017

23

order (ECF No. 47), as well as further hearing on plaintiffs’ motion to compel responses to

24

Requests for Production of Documents and Special Interrogatories (ECF Nos. 36, 47). Attorneys

25

Rhonda Kraeber and Ian Hansen appeared on behalf of the plaintiff; attorney Stephanie Wu

26

appeared on behalf of defendants Lammersville Union School District, James Yeager, Dawn Ibbs,

27

Kirk Nicholas, and Khushwinder Gill.

28

/////
1

1
2

For the reasons stated on the record, plaintiffs’ motion for sanctions and defendants’
request for reconsideration are denied, and plaintiffs’ motion to compel is granted as follows:

3

1. Plaintiffs’ motion to compel is granted as to plaintiffs’ Request for Production of

4

Document Number 13. Defendants’ counsel shall immediately notify the parents that have

5

objected to the disclosure of their identifies and contact information that they must, by no later

6

than May 17, 2017, file a motion for a protective order in compliance with Local Rule 251 that

7

provides a legal basis supporting their objections to the disclosure of such information. See 34

8

C.F.R. § 99.31(a)(9). Defendants shall not produce the names or contact information of any

9

parent that files a motion for a protective order until such motion is resolved by the court. Should

10

an objecting parent fail to file such a motion, defendants shall produce his or her name and

11

contact information by May 18, 2017. As for parents that have not objected, defendants shall

12

produce their names and contact information by close of business on May 5, 2017.

13

2. Plaintiffs’ motion to compel is granted as to Request for Production of Documents

14

Numbers 1 and 35. Defendants shall produce all documents responsive to this request by May 5,

15

2017. The production shall include all post-Altamont/Questa school documents and unredacted

16

versions of documents previously produced with redactions. However, defendants are not

17

required to produce unredacted documents from students whose parents have objected to the

18

disclosure of records until resolution of any related motion for a protective order.

19

3. The court’s prior order granting plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to

20

Request for Production of Documents Number 21 is confirmed. See ECF No. 42. Defendants

21

shall produce all documents responsive to this request by no later than May 17, 2017.

22

DATED: May 4, 2017.

23
24
25
26
27
28
2