McNeal v. Tate County School District

Filing 39

ORDER granting in part and deferring in part 37 MOTION for Miscellaneous relief and Discovery; and ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE Show Cause Response due by 7/5/2016.. Signed by District Judge Debra M. Brown on 6/28/16. (jtm)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
DELTA DIVISION
KELLY MCNEAL, et al.

PLAINTIFFS

V.

NO. 2:70-CV-00029-DMB

TATE COUNTY SCHOOL
DISTRICT, et al.

DEFENDANTS

ORDER
On June 14, 2016, this Court issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order directing, among
other things, expedited briefing regarding Tate County School District’s motion to modify
attendance zone lines. Doc. #33. Pursuant to the order, the District was required to file a
supplement to its motion to modify on or before June 21, 2016, and Plaintiffs were required to
file a response within seven days of the filing of the District’s supplement. Id. at 9. The District
filed its supplement on June 21, 2016. Doc. #35.
On June 23, 2016, Plaintiffs filed a “Motion for Relief Pursuant to Desegregation Order,
for Discovery, to Compel Defendants to file Complete Mandated Reports and to Comply with
the Requirements of the August 4, 1970 Desegregation Order.” Doc. #37. Plaintiffs’ motion,
which is written entirely in a bold faced font and does not contain a single case citation in ten
pages of text, represents that the District has violated numerous requirements of the
desegregation order originally entered in this case, including a provision requiring the reporting
of the race and number of full-time teachers in the District. Id. at ¶ 10. Plaintiffs seek:
an order from this Court requiring the Defendants to file amended reports with
this Court containing the information required by the August 4, 1970,
desegregation order. Plaintiffs also request that the time for filing their response
be extended to a reasonable time after the Defendants have provided the
information which they were ordered to include in their annual report to this

Court, and which they have not included in the annual report they were ordered to
file with this Court.
Id. at ¶ 21 (emphases omitted).
Plaintiffs also pray for an order from this court allowing them to conduct
discovery regarding disciplinary action that the Defendant district has taken
against black students and black faculty and staff during the period of time that
the desegregation order has been in effect; that an order be entered allowing the
Plaintiffs to conduct discovery regarding students who have been allowed to
transfer into the Tate County District and out of the Tate County District during
this same period of time ; that an order be entered allowing Plaintiffs to conduct
discovery regarding teacher and faculty assignment to the District schools ; and to
conduct discovery regarding the race and number of students who have exercised
their option under the “minority /majority transfer program”, or “freedom of
choice program”, since the order of desegregation has been in effect.
Id. at ¶ 19 (emphases omitted). In violation of this Court’s Local Rules, Plaintiffs’ motion does
not contain an assertion as to whether the requested relief is opposed, and is not accompanied by
a separately filed memorandum. See L.U. Civ. R. 7(b)(4) (“At the time the motion is served, …
counsel for movant must file a memorandum brief in support of the motion.”); id. at 7(b)(2)
(“The memorandum brief must be filed as a separate docket item from the motion ….”).
Late yesterday afternoon, in response to Plaintiffs’ motion, the District filed a
supplemental report conceding that the required data showing the number of teachers by race at
each school in the District “has not been submitted since 2000.” Doc. #38. The supplement
purports to provide this data “for years 2010-2011 through 2015-2016,” based on data “readily
available” to the District. Id.; see Doc. #38-1. The District represents that it “is still compiling
data pre-2010 and will seasonably supplement this report once it obtains same.”1 Doc. #38.
By the District’s own admission, and consistent with Plaintiffs’ representation, sixteen
years of annual reports filed by the District omitted data relating to the race and numbers of full-

1

Any supplementation by the District with pre-2010 data will be difficult to establish as seasonable at this point,
which burden lies with the District.

2

time teachers.2 While the District admits that some of the information was readily available, it
offers no reason as to why it has failed to comply with the August 4, 1970, desegregation order
in this regard. The District will therefore be ordered to show cause why it should not be
sanctioned for its patent non-compliance.
Additionally, information about the number of teachers by race is necessary for Plaintiffs
to respond to statements made by the District in its supplemental brief in support of its motion to
modify the attendance zone lines (statements included at the Court’s direction) regarding faculty
and staff in the District’s schools. Consequently, until all such information is submitted by the
District, the Court will stay Plaintiffs’ response to the District’s supplemental brief.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED:
1.

Plaintiffs’ motion [37] is GRANTED3 in Part and DEFERRED in Part.

Plaintiffs’ motion is granted to the extent it seeks a stay of the deadline to respond to the
District’s supplemental brief but is deferred in all other respects. Plaintiffs’ deadline to respond
to the District’s supplemental brief is stayed until further order of the Court.4
2.

The District shall SHOW CAUSE by July 5, 2016, why it should not be

sanctioned for its failure to comply with the August 4, 1970, desegregation order entered by the
Court with respect to its mandate that the District include in its annual reports the number of
teachers by race for each school in the District
SO ORDERED, this 28th day of June, 2016.
/s/ Debra M. Brown
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2

The Court confirmed the same based on its own review of the annual reports filed by the District before the District
filed its recent supplemental report.
3

Such grant is subject to reconsideration upon the filing of a timely response by the District.

4

Once the Court lifts the stay for Plaintiffs’ response, the Court intends to expedite briefing on Plaintiffs’ motion in
recognition of the current expedited status of this case.

3