Koester et al v. Young Men's Christian Association of Greater St. Louis

Filing 71

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Compel Production of Plaintiff N.K. 's IEP (ECF No. 58) is DENIED without prejudice.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Motion to Quash Non-Party Subpoena andfor a Protective Order (ECF No. 61) is GRANTED. Signed by District Judge Ronnie L. White on 6/12/15. (JWJ)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION

MATINA KOESTER,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
V.

YOUNG MEN'S CHRISTIAN
ASSOCIATION OF GREATER
ST. LOUIS,
Defendant.

No. 4:14CV1772 RLW

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Defendant's Motion to Compel Production of Plaintiff
N.K. 's IEP (ECF No. 58). Also pending is Plaintiffs' Motion to Quash Non-Party Subpoena and
for a Protective Order (ECF No. 61). The motions are fully briefed and ready for disposition.
Legal Standards

The scope of discovery for actions filed in federal court are set forth in Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 26(b)(1 ). That rule provides:
Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant
to any party' s claim or defense .... For good cause, the court may order
discovery of matter relevant to the subject matter involved in the action. Relevant
information need not be admissible at trial if the discovery appears reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)( 1). "The rule vests the district court with discretion to limit discovery if it
determines, inter alia, the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely
benefit." Roberts v. Shawnee Mission Ford, Inc., 352 F.3d 358, 361 (8th Cir. 2003) (citing Fed.
R. Civ. P. 26(b)(l)); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d) (authorizing the court to ensure the party

responsible for issuing a subpoena takes "reasonable steps to avoid imposing undue burden or
expense on a person subject to the subpoena").

Discussion
In this case brought under the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 , et

seq. ("ADA"), Plaintiffs, N.K. and his mother, Tina Koester, move to quash a subpoena issued
by Defendant to Nancy Zitzmann, Principal at Bristol Elementary School. The subpoena
commands Ms. Zitzmann to produce N.K.' s Individual Education Programs (IEPs) from May
2014 to present. (Mot. to Quash Ex. 1, ECF No. 62-1) In addition to issuing the subpoena,
Defendant has filed a Motion to Compel the Production ofN.K.' s IEP.
The Court notes that on May 28, 2015, after the parties filed the pending discovery
motions, the Court denied motions to quash the subpoena ofN.K.' s pediatrician, Dr. Plax.
(Memorandum and Order of 5/28/15, ECF No. 64) The Court reasoned that Dr. Plax' s testimony
and records were relevant to the issue of reasonable accommodation. (Id. at p. 4) The Court
further found that " [t]he information is especially relevant in light of Plaintiffs refusal to
produce an IEP." (Id.) Now, in addition to Dr. Plax' s testimony regarding N.K.' s disability,
Defendant seeks production of the IEP through a subpoena served on the principal ofN.K. ' s
school and through a motion to compel.
The Court will deny Defendant' s motion to compel and grant Plaintiffs motion to quash
without prejudice. At this point, it is unknown whether the information from Dr. Plax will
satisfy Defendant with regard to N.K. ' s disability and reasonable accommodation. Defendant
may renew its motion to compel the IEP, after meeting and conferring in good faith with
Plaintiffs and demonstrating that the information from Dr. Plax is somehow insufficient.
Accordingly,

2

.

.

"

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant' s Motion to Compel Production of Plaintiff
N.K. ' s IEP (ECF No. 58) is DENIED without prejudice.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Motion to Quash Non-Party Subpoena and
for a Protective Order (ECF No. 61) is GRANTED.
Dated this 12th day of June, 2015.

RONNIE L. WHITE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3