Shelby County Board Of Education v. Memphis City Board of Education et al

Filing 450

ORDER denying 445 Motion to Compel. Signed by Judge Samuel H. Mays, Jr on 11/15/2012.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
WESTERN DIVISION

BOARD OF EDUCATION OF SHELBY
COUNTY, TENNESSEE, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

v.
MEMPHIS CITY BOARD OF
EDUCATION, et al.,
Defendants.

THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF SHELBY
COUNTY, TENNESSEE,
Third-Party Plaintiff,
v.
ROBERT E. COOPER, JR., et al.,

Third-Party Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 11-2101

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER DENYING SHELBY COUNTY COMMISSION’S MOTION TO COMPEL THE
MEMPHIS PUBLISHING COMPANY

Before the Court is Third-Party Plaintiff the Board of
County Commissioners of Shelby County, Tennessee’s (the
“Commission”) November 9, 2012 Motion to Compel compliance with

a subpoena duces tecum served on the Memphis Publishing Company
(the “Commercial Appeal”) on July 26, 2012. (ECF No. 445.)
The Commission alleges, inter alia, that any application of
certain Municipal School Acts1 or their attendant ordinances in
Shelby County will result in racial segregation in violation of
the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the
United States Constitution and the Class Legislation Clause of
the Tennessee Constitution.
Compel, ECF No. 445-1.)

(Mem. in Support of Pl.’s Mot. to

The Commission seeks production of a

transcript of public comments about newspaper articles relating
to the Municipal School Acts on the Commercial Appeal’s website.
The Commission also seeks the personal identification
information of the individuals who posted the comments.

The

Commission contends that the content of the comments is relevant
to establishing that the passage of the Municipal School Acts
and attendant ordinances was motivated in part by “an intent to
achieve...a disparate racial impact.”

(Id.)

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1), “[p]arties
may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is
relevant to any party’s claim or defense....”

Given “Rule

26(b)(1)’s clear focus on relevance, ‘[a] district court does
not abuse its discretion in denying discovery when the discovery

1

Chapter 1(b)(3), Chapter 905, and Chapter 970 of the Public Acts of the
107th Tennessee General Assembly.

requested would be irrelevant to the underlying issue to be
decided.’”

Sigmon v. Appalachian Coal Props., 400 Fed. App’x

43, 50 (6th Cir. 2010) (quoting Green v. Nevers, 196 F.3d 627,
632 (6th Cir. 1999)).

The Commission’s claim that the

information it seeks concerning the opinions of the general
readership of the Commercial Appeal is relevant to determining
whether racial considerations were a motivating factor in the
Tennessee General Assembly’s decision to enact the Municipal
School Acts is not well taken.
The information sought by the Commission is not relevant to
the underlying issue to be decided and is not an appropriate
subject of discovery in this case.

Therefore, the Commission’s

Motion to Compel is DENIED.

So ordered this 15th day of November, 2012.

s/ Samuel H. Mays, Jr._______
SAMUEL H. MAYS, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE