G.D. & R.D. obo G.D. v. Utica Community Schools
Filing
58
OPINION AND ORDER About Discovery Motions (ECF Nos. 38 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 54 ). Signed by Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford. (MarW)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
G.D. & R.D. obo G.D.,
Plaintiffs
Civil Action No.: 20-12864
Honorable Nancy G. Edmunds
Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford
v.
UTICA COMMUNITY
SCHOOLS,
Defendant.
____________________________/
UTICA COMMUNITY
SCHOOLS,
Plaintiff,
v.
R.D., G.D., G.D., a minor child,
and JASON DANIEL WINE,
Defendants.
____________________________/
OPINION AND ORDER ABOUT DISCOVERY MOTIONS
(ECF NOS. 38, 46, 47, 48, 54)
I.
Introduction and Background
In these consolidated cases, parents of a student with a disability sue
Utica Community Schools (UCS) to recover attorney’s fees after decisions
made by an administrative law judge (ALJ) in May and September 2020.
ECF No. 1. The decisions followed due process hearings under the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). ECF No. 1. After the
parents filed suit, UCS filed its own complaint asking that the ALJ’s
decision be reversed in part, and that the parents and their attorney, Jason
Daniel Wine, pay UCS’s attorney’s fees under 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(3)(B)(II)
and (III). Case No. 20-13255, ECF No. 1. Section 1415(i)(3)(B)(II) allows a
prevailing educational agency to recovery attorney’s fees “against the
attorney of a parent” who either “files a complaint or subsequent cause of
action that is frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation” or “continued
to litigate after the litigation clearly became frivolous, unreasonable, or
without foundation.” Section 1415(i)(3)(B)(III) permits a prevailing
educational agency to recover attorney’s fees “against the attorney of a
parent, or against the parent, if the parent's complaint or subsequent cause
of action was presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, to
cause unnecessary delay, or to needlessly increase the cost of litigation.”
Several discovery motions were referred to this Court for hearing and
determination under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). ECF No. 38; ECF No. 39;
ECF No. 46; ECF No. 47; ECF No. 48; ECF No. 49; ECF No. 54; ECF No.
2
55. The Court held a hearing on October 6, 2021,1 during which Wine
withdrew his objections to UCS deposing him, Yvonne Dixon, Gregory
Dixon, or Reba Dixon.
The remaining issue for consideration was about UCS’s subpoena
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 for the student’s grandmother,
Yvonne, to produce a “copy of any and all documents, personal notes,
emails, correspondence and/or other writings related to G.D. between
yourself and/or Gregory Dixon Jr. and/or Reba Dixon and/or Jason Daniel
Wine with regard to Due Process Hearing Docket Nos. 20-004342 and 20006723 from January 24, 2020, to the present.” ECF No. 38, PageID.303;
ECF No. 54, PageID.525.
II.
Analysis
Attorney-Client Privilege
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 45(d)(3)(iii) permits a court to
quash or modify a subpoena that “requires disclosure of privileged or other
protected matter, if no exception or waiver applies.” Although Yvonne is
not a named party to this action or to the due process hearings, she paid
1
The Court had not added UCS’s motion to compel to its notice of hearing,
as that motion was filed two days before the hearing. ECF No. 54. But
UCS agreed during the hearing to have the resolution of the motion
included in this order.
3
Wine attorney’s fees for his representation of the student. ECF No. 38,
PageID.308. Wine’s motion to quash says that he consulted freely with her
about legal strategy in the case and that they exchanged hundreds of
emails that he believed were privileged. Id. UCS asserts that Wine lacks
standing to move to quash a subpoena served on Yvonne, but a party who
can show a personal interest or a claim of privilege has standing to object
to a subpoena served on a third party. Trier v. Genesee Cty., No. 2:17-CV10236, 2017 WL 5897057, at *2 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 2, 2017).
The attorney-client privilege exists to “encourage full and frank
communication between attorneys and their clients and thereby promote
broader public interests in the observance of law and administration of
justice.” Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383, 389 (1981). It applies:
(1) Where legal advice of any kind is sought (2) from a
professional legal adviser in his capacity as such, (3) the
communications relating to that purpose, (4) made in
confidence (5) by the client, (6) are at his instance permanently
protected (7) from disclosure by himself or by the legal adviser,
(8) except the protection be waived.
United States v. Goldfarb, 328 F.2d 280, 281 (6th Cir. 1964) (quoting 8 J.
Wigmore, Evidence in Trials at Common Law § 2292, at 554 (McNaughton
rev. 1961)). Wine need not have represented Yvonne in a court
proceeding for them to have formed an attorney-client relationship.
Hamrick v. Union Twp., Ohio, 79 F. Supp. 2d 871, 875 (S.D. Ohio 1999)
4
(attorney-client relationship includes “any action on a client’s behalf that is
connected with the law.”). “The test of whether an attorney-client
relationship was created is essentially whether the putative client
reasonably believed that the relationship existed and that the attorney
would therefore advance the interests of the putative client.” F.D.I.C. ex
rel. AmTrust Bank v. Commonwealth Land Title Ins. Co., No. 1:08CV2390,
2012 WL 3912764, at *5 (N.D. Ohio Sept. 7, 2012) (citation and internal
quotation marks omitted).
UCS asserts that Yvonne’s participation in communications between
Wine and the student’s parents destroyed the attorney-client privilege for
those communications. “As a general rule, the attorney-client privilege is
waived by voluntary disclosure of private communications by an individual
or corporation to third parties.” Mainstay High Yield Corp. Bond Fund v.
Heartland Indus. Partners, L.P., 263 F.R.D. 478, 480 (E.D. Mich. 2009).
But the attorney-client privilege extends to counsel’s communications with
agents and experts. Genesco, Inc. v. Visa U.S.A., Inc., 302 F.R.D. 168,
190 (M.D. Tenn. 2014). A middle school principal, Yvonne testified
extensively on the student’s behalf during the due process hearing. Case
No. 20-13255, ECF No. 1-1, PageID.41-46. She testified both as a factual
witness and as an expert on whether UCS’s decisions, processes, and
5
placement of the student in a classroom for students with severe behavioral
issues complied with the IDEA. Id. Whether Yvonne was a client, agent, or
expert on the student’s behalf, she was a member of the student’s litigation
team, and her participation in communication with Wine and the student’s
parents did not destroy the attorney-client privilege.
Scope of Discovery
On top of UCS requesting documents protected by the attorney-client
privilege, it fails to show that its “any and all” document request was proper.
The scope of discovery under Rule 45 is the same as under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1). McGirr v. Rehme, No. 16-464, 2018 WL
3708357, at *6 (S.D. Ohio Aug. 3, 2018). Under Rule 26(b)(1), “[p]arties
may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to
any party's claim or defense,” except that the Court must consider
proportionality factors, including “the importance of the issues at stake in
the action, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access to
relevant information, the parties’ resources, the importance of the discovery
in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed
discovery outweighs its likely benefit.”
UCS broadly argues that the requested materials “bear on issues”
about its claim that the student’s parents and Wine “acted in bad faith”
6
related to the due process hearing and that its request is “reasonably
calculated” to provide information about the credibility of witnesses. ECF
No. 54, PageID.528. But UCS does not articulate its burden for showing
that it is entitled to relief under § 1415(i)(3)(B)(II) or (III) or how the
requested documents relate to that burden. Nor does it explain how its
request for communications “to the present” would bear on alleged bad
faith related to the due process hearing. ECF No. 54, PageID.525. And
UCS’s “reasonably calculated” argument relies on a scope of discovery that
has been obsolete for almost six years. See Weidman v. Ford Motor
Company, No. CV 18-12719, 2021 WL 2349400, at *2 (E.D. Mich. June 9,
2021) (describing the scope of discovery after the December 2015
amendment to Rule 26(b)). Rule 26(b)(1) now requires the Court to assess
whether a discovery request is proportional to the needs of the case, and
UCS made no effort to address the proportionality of the subpoena it
served on Yvonne.
Courts have also long condemned omnibus “any and all” document
requests like that in the subpoena UCS served on Yvonne. See Cheney v.
U.S. Dist. Court for D.C., 542 U.S. 367, 387-88 (2004) (document requests
asking “for everything under the sky” were “anything but appropriate”);
Effyis, Inc. v. Kelly, No. 18-13391, 2020 WL 4915559, at *2 (E.D. Mich.
7
Aug. 21, 2020) (finding that the defendant’s exceptionally broad discovery
requests violated Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(g)); Mirmina v. Genpact LLC, No.
3:16CV00614(AWT), 2017 WL 2559733, at *3 (D. Conn. June 13, 2017)
(“any and all” document requests relating to a subject matter are overbroad
and unduly burdensome).
An omnibus discovery request directed at a third-party through a Rule
45 subpoena is of heightened concern. Rule 45 requires a party serving a
subpoena on a nonparty to “take reasonable steps to avoid imposing undue
burden or expense on a person subject to the subpoena.” Rule 45(d)(1).
Courts are required to enforce that duty and must quash or modify a
subpoena that would subject the nonparty to an undue burden. Rule
45(d)(1) & (d)(3)(iv).
III.
Conclusion
For all these reasons, the Court GRANTS the motion to quash UCS’s
subpoena for Yvonne to produce documents and DENIES UCS’s motion to
compel those documents. ECF No. 38; ECF No. 54. This order does not
preclude USC from serving Yvonne with a more discrete subpoena that is
not inconsistent with the conclusions here.
s/Elizabeth A. Stafford
ELIZABETH A. STAFFORD
United States Magistrate Judge
Dated: October 7, 2021
8
NOTICE TO PARTIES ABOUT OBJECTIONS
Within 14 days of being served with this order, any party may file
objections with the assigned district judge. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). The
district judge may sustain an objection only if the order is clearly erroneous
or contrary to law. 28 U.S.C. § 636. “When an objection is filed to a
magistrate judge’s ruling on a non-dispositive motion, the ruling
remains in full force and effect unless and until it is stayed by the
magistrate judge or a district judge.” E.D. Mich. LR 72.2.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served
upon counsel of record and any unrepresented parties via the Court’s ECF
System to their respective email or First-Class U.S. mail addresses
disclosed on the Notice of Electronic Filing on October 7, 2021.
s/Marlena Williams
MARLENA WILLIAMS
Case Manager
9
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?