J.M.B. et al v. Red Bluff Joint Union High School District

Filing 26

ORDER FOR PARTIES' Joint statement re Discovery disagreement signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 6/27/17. (Mena-Sanchez, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

DAN SIEGEL, SBN 56400
Email: [e-mail]
JANE BRUNNER, SBN 135422
Email: [e-mail]
EMILYROSE JOHNS, SBN 294319
Email: [e-mail]
SIEGEL & YEE
499 14th Street, Suite 300
Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone: [phone]
ELIZABETH KRISTEN, SBN 218227
Email: [e-mail]
KIM TURNER, SBN 277520
Email: [e-mail]
LEGAL AID AT WORK
180 Montgomery Street, Suite 600
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: [phone]
Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Proposed
Class

15
16

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF
CALIFORNIA

17
18
19
20
21
22

T.S. by and through their next friend JERAMIE
STRUTHERS; J.M.B. and J.E.B., by and
through their next friend JAMES BRANDT;
E.A., by and through their next friend HAZEL
BRANDT; C.K. by and through their next
friend TERESA HILL; and G.K. by and through
their next friend LESLIANN JONES and all
others similarly situated,

25
26

[PROPOSED] ORDER FOR PARTIES’
JOINT STATEMENT RE DISCOVERY
DISAGREEMENT

Plaintiffs,

23
24

Case No. 2:17-cv-0489-TLN-EFB

vs.
RED BLUFF JOINT UNION HIGH SCHOOL
DISTRICT,
Defendant.

27
28

{00499132.DOC 3}

Case No. 2:17-cv-0489-TLNEFB

[PROPOSED] ORDER FOR PARTIES’ JOINT STATEMENT RE DISCOVERY DISAGREEMENT

1

Plaintiffs have filed a putative civil rights class action on behalf of “all present and future

2

Red Bluff High School female students and potential students who participate, seek to

3

participate, and/or are or were deterred from participating in athletics at Red Bluff High School.”

4

Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”), Dkt. No. 12, ¶16. Plaintiffs’ action seeks to remedy

5

Defendant’s alleged ongoing violations of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (“Title

6

IX”). The claim for relief primarily at issue in this discovery dispute is Plaintiffs’ First Claim for

7

Relief for Defendant’s Unequal Provision of Treatment and Benefits in the Red Bluff High

8

School Athletics Program. Dkt. No. 12, ¶¶ 103-111 (“Equal Treatment and Benefits Claim”).

9

Plaintiffs’ SAC alleged “Defendant failed to provide equitable athletic treatment and benefits at

10

Red Bluff High School as to female students in comparison to male students” (SAC ¶ 35), as to

11

an array of athletic program components, thus requiring an overall athletic programmatic

12

analysis to determine the impact of alleged inequities on Plaintiffs and the putative class.

13

On May 12, 2017, Plaintiffs served via mail and email, their Request for Site Inspection

14

(“Notice”) (Dkt. No. 16, Ex. 2) requesting to inspect athletic facilities and related amenities at

15

Defendant’s public high school. On May 19, 2017, Defendant served via email, Defendant’s

16

Response/Objections (Dkt. No. 16, Ex. 3) endeavoring to limit the scope and manner of

17

Plaintiffs’ site inspection.

18

On June 7, 2017, the Parties’ submitted a Joint Statement regarding their Discovery

19

Disagreement (Dkt. No. 16) regarding three issues: (1) the scope of the on-site facilities to be

20

inspected for the Site Inspection; (2) limitations on the manner of the Site Inspection; and (3) the

21

attendance of Plaintiffs’ team at the Site Inspection. The matter came for hearing before this

22

Court on June 14, 2017.

23

Based upon the Joint Statement and oral argument regarding the Discovery

24

Disagreement, the Court hereby grants Plaintiffs permission to conduct the Site Inspection as set

25

out in the Notice and as follows: (1) Plaintiffs are permitted to conduct the Site Inspection of all

26

on-site athletic facilities and related amenities at Red Bluff High School as the scope of

27

Plaintiffs’ Notice is appropriate and proportional in light of the allegations of the SAC; (2)

28

Plaintiffs are permitted to measure and count athletic facilities and related amenities at Red Bluff
1
{00499132.DOC 3}

Case No. 2:17-cv-0489-TLNEFB

[PROPOSED] ORDER FOR PARTIES’ JOINT STATEMENT RE DISCOVERY DISAGREEMENT

1

High School; and (3) Plaintiffs are permitted to bring, as requested, four (4) attorneys, their

2

expert, and Plaintiffs’ representatives to attend and aid in conducting the Site Inspection.

3
4

IT IS SO ORDERED
Dated: June 27, 2017.

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
{00499132.DOC 3}

Case No. 2:17-cv-0489-TLNEFB

[PROPOSED] ORDER FOR PARTIES’ JOINT STATEMENT RE DISCOVERY DISAGREEMENT