Banks et al v. St James Parish School Board et al

Filing 367

ORDER AND REASONS: IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's 363 Motion for Status Conference is DENIED for the reasons stated herein. Signed by Magistrate Judge Donna Phillips Currault on 8/21/2024. (alm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
WILLIE BANKS, ET AL.

*

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

*

NO. 65-16173

ST. JAMES PARISH SCHOOL BOARD, *
ET AL.

SECTION “P” (2)

ORDER AND REASONS
Pending before me is Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Status Conference (ECF No. 363) to discuss
Defendant St. James Parish School Board’s alleged failure to engage in informal discovery. St.
James Parish School Board timely filed an Opposition Memorandum (ECF No. 365) and Plaintiffs
filed a Reply Memorandum (ECF No. 366). No party requested oral argument in accordance with
Local Rule 78.1, and the court agrees that oral argument is unnecessary.
Having considered the record, the submissions and arguments of counsel, and the
applicable law, Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Status Conference (ECF No. 363) is DENIED for the
reasons stated herein.
I.

BACKGROUND
The original plaintiffs initiated this school desegregation case on December 15, 1965. See

ECF No. 1. In 1967, the court entered a desegregation decree consistent with United States v.
Jefferson City Board of Education., 380 F.2d 385 (5th Cir. 1967) (en banc). On January 30, 2017,
the court entered a Consent Order adopting the parties’ agreed resolution outlining the School
Board’s requirements for achieving full unitary status in the areas of student assignment (including
the administration of student discipline), faculty assignment, staff assignment, facilities and
extracurricular activities, and transportation. ECF No. 128.

1

Consistent with Freeman v. Pitts, 503 U.S. 467, 491 (1992), on July 17, 2017, the court
declared the School Board in unitary status with regard to extracurricular activities and terminated
supervision with regard to extracurricular activities and transportation, which had previously been
declared unitary. ECF No. 132.
On August 15, 2020, the School Board moved for a declaration of unitary status in the
areas of faculty and staff assignments, student assignment, and facilities. ECF No. 153. In
connection with that motion, the court authorized certain discovery related to the issues raised.
ECF No. 171. The School Board later sought a declaration of unitary status and dismissal with
regard to discipline. ECF No. 179. In accordance with Judge Feldman’s July 27, 2021 Order
compelling the parties to submit a proposed scheduling order, the Clerk of Court designated both
motions for unitary status as withdrawn. See ECF No. 214. After the Court entered the parties’
Joint Motion for Scheduling Order in 2021 (ECF No. 216), the parties jointly moved to extend the
discovery deadline, which request Judge Vance granted on December 6, 2022. ECF Nos. 230-31.
On March 21, 2023, the parties again requested a continuance of the discovery deadline, which
Judge Vance granted in part. ECF Nos. 244, 247. The discovery deadline was continued again to
April 21, 2023. ECF No. 262.
On May 1, 2023, the School Board filed a Motion for Unitary Status in Student
Assignment, which motion is still pending. ECF No. 268. Plaintiffs later filed two Motions for
Further Relief (ECF Nos. 273, 296), both of which are currently pending before Judge Papillion.
II.

The Motion for Status Conference
Plaintiffs now request a status conference with the undersigned magistrate judge to discuss

the School Board’s purported failure to timely provide complete and accurate data in the reports
mandated by the 2023 Order. ECF No. 363. Despite Defendant’s indication that it would provide

2

additional information and the parties’ recent meet and confer, “the parties remain at an impasse
with regard to all of Plaintiffs’ outstanding requests.” Id. at 2-4. Plaintiffs thus request a status
conference to discuss “the scope of Defendant’s obligations to provide informal discovery and
accurate reporting moving forward.” Id. at 5.
In Opposition, St. James Parish School Board argues that a status conference is not
appropriate at this time and urges the court to decline Plaintiffs’ request to gather information and
conduct investigations beyond the scope of the Court’s Orders. ECF No. 365. The School Board
requests an opportunity to confer with Plaintiffs to determine the likelihood of Plaintiffs’ consent
to unitary status in faculty assignment or, alternatively, to negotiate a scheduling order rather than
engage in a premature status conference. Id. at 5-6. The Board notes that Plaintiffs seek to
investigate certain issues involving special education classes, but it contends they have no
authority to investigate those concerns as the effective Orders do not cover special education or
disability concerns. Id. at 7-8. The Board also complains generally about Plaintiffs’ pattern of
issuing “informal information requests” beyond the scope of the Court’s Orders. Id. at 8-10.
In Reply, Plaintiffs state that the parties disagree about (1) Plaintiffs’ ability to request
informal discovery to monitor the District’s compliance with multiple Green factors still at issue
in this litigation and (2) whether complaints from members of the plaintiff class about
discrimination in special education is relevant to the Green factors and Defendant’s obligations.
ECF No. 366. Plaintiffs argue that a scheduling order setting deadlines for formal discovery
regarding any potential motion for unitary status would not resolve the dispute. Id. at 2.
III.

APPLICABLE LAW AND ANALYSIS
The discovery deadline in this matter elapsed on April 21, 2023. Although the parties

anticipate filing a motion to enter another scheduling order, which will include discovery

3

parameters as to faculty assignment information specifically, no such motion has been filed at this
time. Without a discovery protocol in place, this Court cannot compel production of discovery,
whether formal or informal, at this time. See ECF No. 262. To the extent Plaintiffs seek to enforce
the 2017 Consent Order, as modified in 2021 and 2023, a request for status conference before the
undersigned magistrate judge is not the avenue by which to do so.
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Status Conference (ECF No. 363) is DENIED.

21st day of August, 2024.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this ________
___________________________________
DONNA PHILLIPS CURRAULT
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

4