P. v. Holy Names University

Background

M. P. and J. P. sued Holy Names University (HNU) and other defendants. The complaint alleged that HNU-operated Raskob Day School and Learning Institute discriminated against J. P. based on race and disability. The plaintiffs alleged that, during the COVID-19 pandemic, Raskob closed its doors, reduced its academic offerings by 70 percent, and left only a few hours of instruction. They further alleged that Raskob teachers charged students for in-person learning pods during normal school hours and selected students for those pods based on race, excluding J. P. M. P. also alleged that the continued tuition charges without adequate instruction breached the parties’ contract.

The parties submitted a joint discovery letter about HNU’s interrogatories and requests for production. The court decided the letter without a hearing.

Rulings

Interrogatory No. 1

HNU asked the plaintiffs to identify people with knowledge of facts supporting their damages claims, including each person’s full name, last known address, and telephone number. The plaintiffs said they lacked some of that information.

The court ruled that the plaintiffs could not be ordered to provide information they did not have. It nevertheless ordered them to specifically list every person identified in their response and provide each person’s affiliation and role, such as whether the person was a current or former Raskob employee, a parent, or a student. The plaintiffs must immediately provide contact information when they obtain it.

Request for Production No. 16

This request sought documents identified in the plaintiffs’ initial disclosures. HNU asserted that the plaintiffs had not produced all letters from Pluim to Raskob. The court found no sufficient reason to doubt the plaintiffs’ representation that they had produced all such letters in their possession or control and would not require production of documents they did not have or control.

The plaintiffs also appeared to seek J. P.’s educational file from Raskob through the discovery letter. Because the parties disputed whether the plaintiffs had requested the file, the court did not resolve that issue through the letter. It directed the plaintiffs to meet and confer with the defendants or issue a formal discovery request.

Request for Production No. 18

This request sought communications between the plaintiffs and Raskob. The court stated that, if the plaintiffs had withheld responsive documents because HNU already possessed them, the plaintiffs must produce those documents. The court otherwise found it unclear what additional production it could require based on the parties’ submissions.

Requests for Production Nos. 36, 37, and 38

These requests concerned communications and documents relating to Oakland Unified School District, including an agreement under which the district would pay J. P.’s tuition. The plaintiffs said they had not produced or confirmed the existence of the agreement because they believed HNU might be seeking confidential settlement negotiations and because they did not understand what the requests sought.

The court found that the parties had not adequately met and conferred and that the discovery requests had not been provided to the court. It therefore ordered the parties to meet and confer in compliance with the court’s standing order. The court noted that, to the extent the plaintiffs were refusing to produce settlement communications, Federal Rule of Evidence 408 generally concerns admissibility at trial rather than whether settlement material may be discovered.

Other requests for production

HNU sought documents responsive to Requests Nos. 2–6, 11–14, 20, 23, 24, 28, 32, and 33. The plaintiffs had stated that they did not possess responsive documents or control them. The court explained that a party has legal control of a document when it has the legal right to obtain it, even if it does not have a copy.

The court stated that the plaintiffs might not possess or control documents showing that Raskob teachers earned extra money tutoring students. But it identified other documents the plaintiffs should have or be able to obtain, including communications with people listed in their initial disclosures and communications with the California Office of Administrative Hearings. The court ordered the plaintiffs to produce responsive documents currently in their possession within ten days of the order and to begin obtaining, within that same period, documents they had the legal right to obtain.

Disposition

The order disposed of the discovery letter identified as Docket No. 28. It addressed discovery obligations and did not decide the merits of the plaintiffs’ discrimination or contract allegations.