Doe v. San Jose Unified School District Board

Background

Fellowship of Christian Athletes and one of its local chapters, along with former student members Elizabeth Sinclair and Charlotte Klarke, alleged that the San Jose Unified School District and several employees discriminated against the organization and its members because of their religious viewpoints. The claims arose under the Equal Access Act and the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

The discovery dispute concerned plaintiffs’ request for findings and conclusions from any District investigation into Peter Glasser’s alleged misconduct, as well as documents and information used to develop those findings. The opinion states that Glasser, a teacher at Pioneer High School, had posted and commented on statements associated with the club. Plaintiffs also referred to additional alleged conduct and said complaints about Glasser may have led to an investigation by the school principal or District.

Discovery Standard

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1), parties may obtain discovery of information relevant to a claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case. The court considers factors including the importance of the issues, the parties’ access to information, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the likely benefit outweighs the burden or expense.

Because the claims arose under federal law, the court explained that federal law governs whether a privilege or other protection applies to the discovery.

Relevance

The court found the requested discovery relevant. It stated that the District’s contemporaneous investigation of the events at issue was likely highly relevant to plaintiffs’ discrimination claims. The information could show whether the District uncovered evidence about what occurred, whether Glasser acted with hostility toward plaintiffs’ religious beliefs, and whether other defendants discouraged, encouraged, or approved Glasser’s alleged conduct.

The defendants argued that later investigations were unnecessary because they had agreed to provide discovery directly concerning the underlying events. The court found that argument unpersuasive, noting that the defendants had not shown why the requested discovery was necessarily cumulative.

Privacy and Protective Measures

The defendants argued that Glasser’s personnel records were protected by a privacy right under the California Constitution and California law. The court noted that the defendants did not explain why California law should govern discovery in this federal-law case. It also found that the authorities cited by the defendants did not establish that a California constitutional privacy right barred the requested discovery, and the defendants did not explain how the requested personnel information implicated federal constitutional privacy rights.

The court nevertheless gave the defendants the benefit of the doubt that some responsive materials could contain confidential personal information or information damaging to Glasser’s reputation. To the extent the discovery included properly characterized personnel records, the court found that a protective order was warranted to prevent public dissemination of those records and their contents.

Disposition

The court concluded that the requested discovery was relevant and proportionate and must be produced if responsive to plaintiffs’ discovery requests. The District could produce responsive documents and information on an outside-counsel-eyes-only basis or with other appropriate restrictions. The court encouraged the parties to discuss and file a proposed protective order governing confidential information.