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: danmsiegel@gmail.com
JANE BRUNNER, SBN 135422
Email: janebrunner@hotmail.com
EMILYROSE JOHNS, SBN 294319
Email: emilyrose@siegelyee.com
SIEGEL & YEE
499 14th Street, Suite 300
Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone: (510) 839-1200
ELIZABETH KRISTEN, SBN 218227
Email: ekristen@legalaidatwork.org
KIM TURNER, SBN 277520
Email: kturner@legalaidatwork.org
LEGAL AID AT WORK
180 Montgomery Street, Suite 600
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 864-8848
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
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?