B.S. v. Independent School District No. 623

Background

B.S., a minor represented by her parent and natural guardian, alleges that Geraldine Cook, then her second-grade teacher, assaulted her during the 2019–20 school year. B.S. also alleges that Cook singled out, discriminated against, and physically assaulted other African American students. According to B.S., Independent School District No. 623, also known as Roseville Area Schools, knew about Cook’s conduct before the alleged assault.

B.S.’s lawsuit asserts six claims: race discrimination under the Minnesota Human Rights Act against the school district; battery against the school district and Cook; negligent supervision and negligent retention against the school district; equal-protection violations under the Fourteenth Amendment through 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Cook; and race discrimination under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 against the school district.

The parties had agreed to a confidentiality agreement and protective order governing discovery. The order addressed nonpublic educational and personnel information protected by the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act and the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. The school district notified third parties whose information might be disclosed, and five people submitted objections. The school district withheld the information listed in its privilege log even though it conceded that the information was discoverable.

Analysis

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1), parties may obtain discovery of nonprivileged information that is relevant to a claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case. The court concluded that the withheld information was highly relevant. Information about Cook’s treatment of other students and the school district’s response could help B.S. show that the district had prior notice of an alleged pattern of discriminatory conduct. The information was also relevant to B.S.’s state-law claims.

The court rejected the school district’s reliance on the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act as a reason to withhold otherwise proper discovery in federal court. The court stated that federal discovery rules govern discovery in a federal lawsuit. It also said that, even if it applied the state law’s balancing test, B.S.’s benefit from reviewing the nonpublic personnel information would outweigh the personnel’s privacy interests, particularly because the protective order provided confidentiality protections.

As to third-party student information, the court determined that personal identifying information should be redacted. The court reasoned that redaction would avoid implicating the federal student-privacy law and would allow B.S. to investigate whether the school district knew about Cook’s alleged conduct without revealing sensitive identifying information about uninvolved minor students. The court found this approach proportional to the needs of the case.

Ruling

The court granted in part and denied in part B.S.’s Motion to Compel Production of Confidential Information. It ordered that the educational and personnel data listed on the privilege log be disclosed within 14 days, except for the personal identifying information of minor students. The order also stated that prior consistent orders remained in effect and warned that violations could lead to remedies or sanctions, including costs, fines, attorney fees, evidentiary limits, striking of pleadings, dismissal with prejudice, or default judgment.

Judge Tony N. Leung signed the order as a United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota.