Benner v. Saint Paul Public Schools, I.S.D. 625

Background

Aaron A. Benner alleged that Saint Paul Public Schools Independent School District #625 and Lisa Gruenewald discriminated against him because of his race, retaliated against him for protected activity, and constructively discharged him from his teaching employment. He claimed that the defendants targeted him with investigations, discipline, and a transfer after he opposed the school district’s implementation of a racial-equity policy at a May 2014 School Board meeting.

Benner moved to compel discovery concerning other teachers who might serve as comparators. He argued that the defendants’ purpose could be shown by evidence that they did not investigate or discipline other teachers after receiving complaints about similar conduct. The disputed requests sought complaints about teachers at Johnson Elementary, documents concerning investigations of those teachers, and documents concerning oral or written reprimands given to them.

Scope of Discovery

The court had previously limited the production to four years of information about investigations of other staff members at Benner’s former school, presented in a chart protecting the privacy of those staff members. The defendants produced a chart identifying 15 teachers.

At the hearing, Benner’s counsel confirmed that Benner sought documents only about those other teachers, including tenured and probationary teachers; did not seek to expand the four-year period; and did not seek information about teachers at other schools. Benner withdrew his request for supplemental answers to two interrogatories because he had otherwise obtained the information sought. The order therefore did not require additional interrogatory answers.

Court’s Analysis

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37, the court concluded that the defendants had to produce documents responsive to Requests 18, 30, and 31 for each of the 15 teachers. The court explained that comparator evidence—information about employees who may have been treated differently—can be relevant in employment-discrimination cases, where unlawful conduct may be proved through indirect or circumstantial evidence.

The court held that the 15 teachers were sufficiently similarly situated to Benner for purposes of discovery. It distinguished the broader discovery inquiry from the stricter comparator analysis used at summary judgment or at trial. Even if some teachers ultimately were not valid comparators, information about them could still help Benner test his theory that the defendants investigated comparable conduct only when more serious allegations were involved.

The court rejected the defendants’ arguments that discovery should exclude probationary teachers, teachers who worked for a different principal, or teachers whose alleged misconduct was qualitatively different or more serious. The court also found the requested information relevant to Benner’s claims and the defendants’ defenses and proportional to the needs of the case.

The court recognized privacy interests involving the non-party teachers but concluded that those interests did not justify refusing discovery altogether. It noted that the existing protective order, redactions, and use of initials could address privacy concerns. The court did not understand Benner to be seeking the teachers’ full personnel files.

Order

The court ordered the defendants to produce documents responsive to Requests 18, 30, and 31 for each of the 15 teachers identified in the August 27, 2018 chart. The production was limited to documents referring or relating to complaints, investigations, and reprimands or discipline; the defendants were not required to produce the teachers’ entire personnel files. The parties were directed to meet and confer about any needed changes to the protective order or redactions and to promptly raise any remaining disagreement with concise letters.

The opinion text is signed by Katherine Menendez, United States Magistrate Judge.