Richardson v. Huber Heights City Schools Board of Education et al

Filing 108

ORDER - Defendant Board of Education of Huber Heights City Schools may produce to Plaintiff's counsel 105 and 106 pursuant to the terms of the Protective Order 24 and as set forth herein. Signed by Chief Magistrate Judge Sharon L. Ovington on 12-8-14. (mcm1)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
DONALD RICHARDSON,1
on behalf of himself and his minor
child K.R., et al.,
Plaintiffs,

:
:

BOARD OF EDUCATION OF
HUBER HEIGHTS CITY
SCHOOLS, et al.,
Defendants.

Case No. 3:12cv00342

:

vs.

:

District Judge Thomas M. Rose
Chief Magistrate Judge Sharon L. Ovington

:
:
:

ORDER

The case is presently before the Court upon Defendant Board of Education of Huber
Heights City Schools’ Notices of Submission of Documentation Concerning Students 1 and
5 for In Camera Inspection (Doc. #s 98, 99), Student 1’s Objections (Doc. #107), and the
record as a whole. Defendant represents that Student 5 does not object to disclosure of his
document. See Doc. # 99. The documents presently under in camera review have been filed
under seal. (Doc. #s 105, 106).
Rule 26(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows a party to “obtain
discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to any party’s claim or

1

Plaintiff KR, who has reached the age of majority, was recently substituted as Plaintiff in place
of his father, Donald Richardson. (Doc. #88). As a result, KR is now the sole Plaintiff in the case.

defense ....” Additionally, “For good cause, the court may order discovery of any matter
relevant to the subject matters involved in the action. Relevant information need not be
admissible at the trial if the discovery appears to be reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence ....” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).
“The scope of discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is traditionally
quite broad.” Lewis v. ACB Bus. Serv., Inc., 135 F.3d 389, 402 (6th Cir. 1998). “Generally,
[Rule] 26(b) enables parties to discover any unprivileged evidence or information relevant to
their claim.” Surles ex rel. Johnson v. Greyhound Lines, Inc., 474 F.3d 288, 305 (6th Cir.
2007) (citation omitted). Yet, it is not an abuse of discretion to preclude “discovery when
the discovery requested would be irrelevant to the underlying issue to be decided.” Green v.
Nevers, 196 F.3d 627, 632 (6th Cir. 1999).
In camera review of the documents concerning Students 1 and 5 reveals that the
documents contain information relevant and discoverable under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).
Specifically, the documents speak to what occurred during the incident at issue and what the
Principal of Wayne High School did in response to the incident.
Student 1 objects to any production of the document concerning him (Doc. #105),
arguing that it is “inaccurate and incomplete, as it does not conclude by correctly noting that
[Student 1’s] suspension was completely expunged from his records and that his official high
school records do not reflect any suspension of any kind.” (Doc. #107). Student 1 also
objects to the disclosure of his name “being the only party identified by name in this
documentation.” Id. Accepting as true (at this stage of the case) that Student 1’s suspension

2

was completely expunged from his high-school records, this fact fails to eliminate the
relevance, under Rule 26(b)(1), of the information in the document. To the extent the
alleged inaccuracies in the document implicate Student 1’s interest in maintaining his
privacy, that interest is sufficiently protected by his designation as Student 1, rather than his
actual name; by both this Order and the Court’s prior Protective Order; and by the sealedstatus of the documents related to him in the record of the case.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT:
Defendant Board of Education of Huber Heights City Schools may produce to
Plaintiff’s counsel Doc. #s 105 and 106, pursuant to the terms of the Protective Order (Doc.
# 24). The documents shall be retained solely in the custody of the parties’ counsel and their
employees and shall not be placed in the possession of, or disclosed to, any other person
except as the Protective Order permits.

December 8, 2014
s/Sharon L. Ovington
Sharon L. Ovington
Chief United States Magistrate Judge

3