C.H. v. Howard et al

Filing 152

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Stephan M. Vidmar DENYING 104 Plaintiffs Motion to Compel as it relates to Plaintiffs' RFP 10 and GRANTING Plaintiffs' oral motion to compel production of a memo related to Defendant Critchlow. (nlb)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO C.H., Plaintiff, v. PATRICK HOWARD, DANA CRITCHLOW, GREGORY A. EWING, and LAS CRUCES PUBLIC SCHOOLS, No. 21-cv-0574 MV/SMV consolidated with 20-cv-0190 SMV/GBW 20-cv-0276 GBW/SMV 20-cv-0549 SMV/GBW Defendants, and TEACHERS INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff-in-Intervention, v. C.H. and PATRICK HOWARD, Defendants-in-Intervention. ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT LAS CRUCES PUBLIC SCHOOLS’ RESPONSE TO RFP 10 AND GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ ORAL MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF THE CRITCHLOW MEMO THIS MATTER is before me on Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Defendant Las Cruces Public Schools’ (“LCPS’s”) Answers and Responses to Plaintiffs’ First Sets of Interrogatories, Requests for Production, Requests for Admission, and Requests for Inspection (the “Motion to Compel”) [Doc. 104].1 I heard oral argument on June 30, 2022, and granted the Motion to Compel in part and denied it in part on July 1, 2022. [Doc. 144]. I reserved ruling on (1) Plaintiffs’ motion 1 See LCPS’s Response [Doc. 117] and Plaintiff’s Reply [Doc. 124]. to compel production of completed evaluation forms from 2015 to present for the LCPS employees listed in Request for Production (“RFP”) 10 and (2) Plaintiffs’ oral motion, during the oral argument, to compel production of a memo related to Defendant Critchlow (the “Critchlow Memo”) pending in camera review of those documents. Id. Having reviewed the documents, I find the contents of the evaluation forms are not relevant to any claims or defenses in this matter. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) (discovery encompasses “any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense . . . .”). In contrast, I find that the contents of the Critchlow Memo are relevant and discoverable. I will, therefore, deny Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel as it relates to RFP 10 and grant Plaintiffs’ oral motion to compel production of the Critchlow Memo. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel as it relates to RFP 10 is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ oral motion to compel production of the Critchlow Memo is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that LCPS must produce a copy of the Critchlow Memo to Plaintiffs within five days of entry of this Order. IT IS SO ORDERED. STEPHAN M. VIDMAR UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 2

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?