Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

T.S. EX REL. STRUTHERS v. RED BLUFF JOINT UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT, 2:17-cv-0489-TLN-EFB. (2017)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20170629b78 Visitors: 12
Filed: Jun. 27, 2017
Latest Update: Jun. 27, 2017
Summary: ORDER FOR PARTIES' JOINT STATEMENT RE DISCOVERY DISAGREEMENT EDMUND F. BRENNAN , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiffs have filed a putative civil rights class action on behalf of "all present and future Red Bluff High School female students and potential students who participate, seek to participate, and/or are or were deterred from participating in athletics at Red Bluff High School." Second Amended Complaint ("SAC"), Dkt. No. 12, 16. Plaintiffs' action seeks to remedy Defendant's alleged ongoin
More

ORDER FOR PARTIES' JOINT STATEMENT RE DISCOVERY DISAGREEMENT

Plaintiffs have filed a putative civil rights class action on behalf of "all present and future Red Bluff High School female students and potential students who participate, seek to participate, and/or are or were deterred from participating in athletics at Red Bluff High School." Second Amended Complaint ("SAC"), Dkt. No. 12, ¶16. Plaintiffs' action seeks to remedy Defendant's alleged ongoing violations of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 ("Title IX"). The claim for relief primarily at issue in this discovery dispute is Plaintiffs' First Claim for Relief for Defendant's Unequal Provision of Treatment and Benefits in the Red Bluff High School Athletics Program. Dkt. No. 12, ¶¶ 103-111 ("Equal Treatment and Benefits Claim"). Plaintiffs' SAC alleged "Defendant failed to provide equitable athletic treatment and benefits at Red Bluff High School as to female students in comparison to male students" (SAC ¶ 35), as to an array of athletic program components, thus requiring an overall athletic programmatic analysis to determine the impact of alleged inequities on Plaintiffs and the putative class.

On May 12, 2017, Plaintiffs served via mail and email, their Request for Site Inspection ("Notice") (Dkt. No. 16, Ex. 2) requesting to inspect athletic facilities and related amenities at Defendant's public high school. On May 19, 2017, Defendant served via email, Defendant's Response/Objections (Dkt. No. 16, Ex. 3) endeavoring to limit the scope and manner of Plaintiffs' site inspection.

On June 7, 2017, the Parties' submitted a Joint Statement regarding their Discovery Disagreement (Dkt. No. 16) regarding three issues: (1) the scope of the on-site facilities to be inspected for the Site Inspection; (2) limitations on the manner of the Site Inspection; and (3) the attendance of Plaintiffs' team at the Site Inspection. The matter came for hearing before this Court on June 14, 2017.

Based upon the Joint Statement and oral argument regarding the Discovery Disagreement, the Court hereby grants Plaintiffs permission to conduct the Site Inspection as set out in the Notice and as follows: (1) Plaintiffs are permitted to conduct the Site Inspection of all on-site athletic facilities and related amenities at Red Bluff High School as the scope of Plaintiffs' Notice is appropriate and proportional in light of the allegations of the SAC; (2) Plaintiffs are permitted to measure and count athletic facilities and related amenities at Red Bluff High School; and (3) Plaintiffs are permitted to bring, as requested, four (4) attorneys, their expert, and Plaintiffs' representatives to attend and aid in conducting the Site Inspection.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer