Young et al v. Pleasant Valley School District et al

Filing 112

MEMORANDUM and ORDER denying 107 Motion to Strike Signed by Honorable James M. Munley on 11/5/09 (sm, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA PATRICIA YOUNG, WILLIAM YOUNG, and PATRICIA YOUNG, on behalf of her minor daughter, Plaintiffs : No. 3:07cv854 : : (Judge Munley) : : : v. : : PLEASANT VALLEY SCHOOL : DISTRICT, : JOHN J. GRESS, Principal, in his : individual capacity, and : DR. FRANK A. PULLO, : Superintendent, in his individual : capacity, : Defendants : ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
M E M O R AN D U M B e fo re the court is defendants' motion to strike plaintiff Patricia Young's a ffid a vit (Doc. 107). Having been fully briefed, the matter is ripe for disposition. I. Background T h is case arises from plaintiffs' conflicts with the defendant Pleasant Valley School District over events in the United States history classroom of Bruce H. S m ith . According to plaintiffs' complaint, their daughter was a student in Smith's h ig h school class. During her time in that classroom, Smith exposed their daughter a n d other sixteen and seventeen year olds to "sexually explicit and offensive m a te ria l" in violation of school district rules. (Amended Complaint (hereinafter

"Amended Complt.") (Doc. 17) at ¶ 9). Smith allegedly showed the students p h o to g ra p h s of naked and dismembered female murder victims. (Id. at ¶ 10). He a ls o asked female students about how they were dressed during a pillow fight, d is c u s s e d with them push-up bras and averred that he had skipped classes in c o lle g e to "`bang the cheerleader.'" (Id.). Smith exposed students to an unpublished, a u to b io g ra p h ic a l tract entitled "Memoirs of a Class President." (Id. at ¶ 11). This d o c u m e n t featured a great deal of sexually explicit material, including graphic d e p ic tio n s of sexual encounters related in first-person by the author. (Id.). Plaintiffs c o m p la in e d about this material to Defendants Gress and Pullo, the principal and s u p e rin te n d e n t of the school district. (Id. at ¶ 11-12). They allege that raising c o n c e rn s about the presence of this "graphic, disturbing" material in a classroom p o p u la te d by minors addressed "social, educational and safety concerns" in the P le a s a n t Valley school community. (Id. at ¶ 12). On May 9, 2005, plaintiffs filed a complaint in this court alleging violations of th e ir First Amendment rights in the school district's reaction to their complaints. (See D o c . 1). Plaintiffs filed this complaint anonymously. Defendants responded with a m o tio n to dismiss that complaint because plaintiffs had not provided their real names a n d had not sought the court's permission to file the complaint anonymously. (See D o c . 5). Plaintiffs then filed a motion for permission to proceed anonymously due to s a fe ty concerns (See Doc. 9). In addition to responding to that motion, defendants file d a motion to stay discovery pending the outcome of our decision on those

2

motions. (See Docs. 11-12). On August 1, 2007, the court issued a memorandum a n d order denying plaintiff's motion to proceed anonymously and the defendants' m o tio n to stay discovery. (See Doc. 16). The court also ordered the plaintiff to file a n amended complaint that provided the plaintiffs' real names. The plaintiffs filed their amended complaint on August 10, 2007. Defendants file d a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. (See Doc. 18). After briefing and o ra l argument, the court granted the motion in part and denied it in part. (See Doc. 3 3 ). The court also directed the plaintiffs to file a second amended complaint, which th e y did on February 18, 2008 (Doc. 35). On August 9, 2008, plaintiffs filed a third a m e n d e d complaint, which added now-ripe claims under Pennsylvania law. (Doc. 5 4 ). Discovery continued and the parties eventually filed motions for summary ju d g m e n t. As part of her motion, plaintiff submitted an affidavit in support of her c la im s . Defendants then filed the instant motion, arguing that the affidavit should be s tric k e n from the record. II. Jurisdiction A s this case is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, we have jurisdiction p u rs u a n t to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ("The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of a ll civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States."). W e have supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiff's state law claims pursuant to 28 U .S .C . § 1367. III. Discussion

3

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals has noted that "[t]he Federal Rules of Civil P ro c e d u re do not prescribe how courts should address" affidavits that contradict p rio r deposition testimony. Jiminez v. All American Rathskeller, Inc., 503 F.3d 247, 2 5 1 (3d Cir. 2007). Still, "`a party may not create a material issue of fact to defeat s u m m a ry judgment by filing an affidavit disputing his or her own sworn testimony w ith o u t demonstrating a plausible explanation for the conflict.'" Id. Courts have te rm e d an affidavit produced solely for this purpose a "sham affidavit," and found th a t such a document "cannot raise a genuine issue of fact because it is merely a va ria n c e from earlier deposition testimony, and therefore no reasonable jury could re ly on it to find for the nonmovant." Id. at 253. Not all affidavits that contradict p re vio u s sworn testimony are shams, however, and "`[w]hen there is independent e vid e n c e in the record to bolster an otherwise questionable affidavit, courts generally h a ve refused to disregard the affidavit.'" Id. (quoting Baer v. Chase, 392 F.3d 609, 6 2 5 (3d Cir. 2004)). That additional evidence "may establish that the affiant was `u n d e rs ta n d a b ly' mistaken, confused, or not in possession of all the facts during the p re vio u s deposition," and the proponent of the affidavit also "has the opportunity to o ffe r a `satisfactory explanation' for the conflict between the prior deposition and the a ffid a vit." Id. (quoting Hackman v. Valley Fair, 932 F.2d 239, 241 (3d Cir. 1991)). If a party fails to "explain the contradiction between a subsequent affidavit and a prior d e p o s itio n , it is appropriate for the district court to disregard the subsequent affidavit a n d the alleged factual issue in dispute as a `sham,' therefore not creating an

4

impediment to a grant of summary judgment based on the deposition." Id. P la in tiff executed an affidavit after she submitted to a deposition. The d e fe n d a n ts argue that certain parts of the deposition offer testimony which c o n tra d ic ts or at least distorts portions of her deposition, contains plaintiff's opinions, ra is e s matters that were not addressed at her deposition, and does not address a re a s about which confusion existed during her deposition. Plaintiff responds that h e r affidavit is merely meant to clarify her deposition testimony, and is thus a d m is s ib le . The court finds that striking the entire affidavit is not an appropriate remedy in th is matter, and will deny the motion as premature. As explained above, when a p a rty files an affidavit in support of their position on a motion for summary judgment, th e court is to determine whether the evidence contained in that affidavit should be c o n s id e re d in light of the affiant's previous deposition testimony. Thus, the court's c o n s id e ra tio n of that affidavit is part of the court's examination of the case record as p a rt of its decision on whether to grant summary judgment. The court is aware that th e defendants consider the affidavit inadmissible, and will consider these arguments in determining whether an issue of material fact exists which requires a jury trial. C o n c lu s io n F o r the reasons stated above, the court will deny the defendants' motion as p re m a tu re . An appropriate order follows.

5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA PATRICIA YOUNG, WILLIAM YOUNG, and PATRICIA YOUNG, on behalf of her minor daughter, Plaintiffs : No. 3:07cv854 : : (Judge Munley) : : : v. : : PLEASANT VALLEY SCHOOL : DISTRICT, : JOHN J. GRESS, Principal, in his : individual capacity, and : DR. FRANK A. PULLO, : Superintendent, in his individual : capacity, : Defendants : ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
ORDER AN D NOW, to wit, this 5th day of November 2009, the defendants' motion to s trik e plaintiff's affidavit (Doc. 107) is hereby DENIED. .

B Y THE COURT: s / James M. Munley JUDGE JAMES M. MUNLEY U N IT E D STATES DISTRICT COURT

6