Doe et al v. Rutherford County, Tennessee, Board of Education

Filing 72

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: For the reasons stated below, Plaintiffs' Motion to Quash 45 is DENIED. Signed by Magistrate Judge John S. Bryant on 4/24/14. (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(dt)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION
JANE DOE, et al.,
Plaintiffs
v.
RUTHERFORD COUNTY, TENNESSEE,
BOARD OF EDUCATION,
Defendant

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 3:13-0328
Judge Trauger/Bryant
Jury Demand

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Pending in this case is Plaintiffs’ Motion to Quash
(Docket

Entry

No.

45)

to

which

Defendant

has

responded

in

opposition (Docket Entry No. 49).
For the reasons stated below, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Quash
is DENIED.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Jane Doe and her parents, John and Mary Doe, as legal
guardians of their minor daughters, June and Sally Doe, have filed
this action against the Defendant Rutherford County, Tennessee,
Board of Education alleging discrimination on the basis of sex in
violation of 20 U.S.C. § 1681(a) and retaliation. Specifically,
Plaintiffs claim that Jane Doe, June Doe and Sally Doe were
subjected to certain acts of physical hazing, allegedly of a sexual
nature, by other students at Siegel High School operated by
Defendant. Plaintiffs allege that Defendant wrongfully failed to
investigate or address these incidents, and that it retaliated

against Plaintiffs when Plaintiffs complained (Docket Entry No.
30).
Defendant has filed an answer denying liability and
asserting affirmative defenses (Docket Entry No. 31).
SUMMARY OF PERTINENT FACTS
Plaintiffs by their present motion seek an order quashing
a Rule 45 subpoena served by Defendant upon Motlow State Community
College. This subpoena apparently seeks the following:
Any and all information regarding June Doe including, but
not limited to her involvement with the basketball team
at Motlow College, dates and nature of involvement,
scholarship offers, the reasons for her departure from
the school and/or basketball team, pending claims or
disputes, and all other matters.
As grounds for their motion, Plaintiffs say that this
subpoena would require production of confidential information which
Motlow is not at liberty to disclose, and that the subpoena request
is overly broad and seeks information that is neither relevant nor
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence (Docket Entry No. 45).
ANALYSIS
As a general statement, Rule 26(a)(1) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure provides that parties may obtain discovery
regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s
claim

or

defense,

admissible

at

the

and

that

trial

relevant

if

the

information

discovery

need

appears

not

be

reasonably

calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Rule

45(b)(3)

provides

that

the

court

may

quash

a

subpoena if it (1) fails to allow a reasonable time to comply; (2)
requires

a

person

to

comply

beyond
2

the

geographical

limits

specified in Rule 45(c); (3) requires disclosure of privileged or
other protected matter, if no exception or waiver applies; or (4)
subjects a person to undue burden. Here, the motion to quash is not
based upon claims related to timeliness, geography, undue burden or
privilege. Rather, Plaintiff argues that the information sought is
confidential, and that the information request in the subpoena is
overly broad, irrelevant, and not reasonably calculated to lead to
the discovery of admissible evidence.
The Federal Education Records and Privacy Act (“FERPA”),
20 U.S.C. § 1232(g), does not create an evidentiary privilege, nor
does it prohibit production of otherwise confidential documents
pursuant to a court order. Edmonds v. Detroit Public School System,
No. 12-CV-10023, 2012 WL 5844655 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 19, 2012).
Moreover, the FERPA statute itself contains an express exception
allowing disclosure of education records in compliance with a
judicial order or pursuant to any lawfully issued subpoena. 20
U.S.C. § 1232(g)(b)(2)(B).
Therefore, the undersigned Magistrate Judge finds that
FERPA does not prohibit production of the information sought by the
subpoena served upon Motlow State Community College.
It further appears that the information sought is likely
relevant to issues raised in this case, or is reasonably calculated
to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Specifically,
Plaintiffs allege that as the result of wrongdoing by Defendant,
Plaintiffs

“have

been

denied

education

and

educational

opportunities and have been excluded from programs and activities.”
(Docket Entry No. 30 at 7). In addition, it appears from the motion
papers that Plaintiffs will or may make the claim that June Doe’s
leaving Siegel High School as the result of Defendant’s wrongdoing
3

has impaired or diminished her ability to attend college on a
basketball

scholarship

(Docket

Entry

No.

49-2).

Accordingly,

information relating to June Doe’s basketball career and academic
record at Motlow State Community College is likely to be relevant
or

lead

to

discovery

of

admissible

evidence

in

this

case.

Therefore, the undersigned Magistrate Judge finds that Plaintiffs’
Motion to Quash must be DENIED.
Nevertheless, the undersigned Magistrate Judge finds that
information to be produced pursuant to the subject subpoena is
likely confidential in nature and is deserving of a protective
order

pursuant

to

Rule

26(c)

of

the

Federal

Rules

of

Civil

Procedure. Accordingly, the undersigned designates information to
be produced pursuant to the subject subpoena as confidential and
ORDERS that disclosure of such information shall be restricted and
limited to the parties, their counsel, and other persons who
reasonably require such information for the purpose of preparing or
presenting evidence in this lawsuit. Upon conclusion of this case,
including any appeals, counsel for the parties shall promptly
destroy any information or documents received as a result of the
subject subpoena, and certify to each other that they have done so.
Finally,

the

undersigned

ORDERS

that

production

of

information pursuant to the subject subpoena shall be made no later
than May 9, 2014. Counsel for Defendant shall provide a copy of
this memorandum and order to the appropriate representative of
Motlow State Community College.
It is so ORDERED.
/s/ John S. Bryant
JOHN S. BRYANT
United States Magistrate Judge

4

5