Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

D.E. v. Central Dauphin School Dist.

March 31, 2008

D.E. ET AL., PLAINTIFFS
v.
CENTRAL DAUPHIN SCHOOL DISTRICT, DEFENDANT



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Chief Judge Kane

MEMORANDUM

Before the Court is Defendant's motion for a protective order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). (Doc. No. 20.) Both parties have submitted briefs, and the motion is ripe for disposition. For the reasons that follow, the motion will be denied.

I. BACKGROUND

On December 18, 2006, Plaintiffs D.E. and his parents brought this action against Defendant Central Dauphin School District ("CDSD") pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ("IDEA"), 20 U.S.C. § 1401 et seq. In the action, Plaintiffs seek, inter alia, to recover 10,000 hours of compensatory education, or a monetary equivalent thereof, awarded to D.E. by a hearing officer in an order dated March 23, 2006.*fn1 On February 12, 2007, Defendant filed an answer to Plaintiffs' complaint.

On July 12, 2007, the parties requested a telephone conference with the Court to discuss a discovery dispute. In the conference, the parties indicated that Plaintiffs served a subpoena upon Defendant requesting certain documents. Specifically, Plaintiffs requested that Defendant produce:

All documents relating to contracts between the Central Dauphin School District (CDSD) and teachers employed by the district, all documents relating to the valuation of fringe and employment benefits received by CDSD school teachers including without limitation pension and retirement, all documents relating to the provision and costs of transportation services provided to school students within CDSD, all documents relating to teacher pay and salary, all pay and salary schedules for all teachers employed by the district for the most recent school year. (Ex. 2, Doc. No. 22-3, at 3.) Defendant objected to Plaintiffs' request in its entirety.

Following the conference, the Court issued an order permitting Defendant to file a motion for a protective order by July 20, 2007. That day, Defendant filed the instant motion (Doc. No. 20) and supporting brief (Doc. No. 21.) On July 24, 2007, Plaintiffs filed a brief in opposition to the motion (Doc. No. 22), to which Defendant filed a reply on July 30, 2007 (Doc. No. 23).

II. DISCUSSION

Defendant's challenge the Plaintiffs' document request on two grounds. First, Defendant argues that Plaintiffs improperly served the request as a subpoena pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 rather than as a request for documents pursuant to Rule 34. Second, Defendant argues that a protective order is appropriate because the documents requested by Plaintiffs are not discoverable under Rule 26(b). The Court will address both arguments in turn.

A. The use of a subpoena as opposed to a request to produce documents Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34, which governs the procedure for discovery of documents, provides in part that:

Any party may serve on any other party a request . . . to produce and permit the party making the request . . . to inspect, copy, test, or sample any designated documents . . . which constitute or contain matters within the scope of Rule 26(b) and which are in the possession, custody or control of the party upon whom the request is served.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a). In addition, Rule 34(c) states that "[a]s provided in Rule 45, a nonparty may be compelled to produce documents and tangible things or to permit an inspection." In this case, Defendant argues that Plaintiffs improperly served a subpoena on Defendant pursuant to Rule 45 instead of propounding a discovery request pursuant to Rule 34(b). As a technical matter, Defendant is correct. Practically, however, the difference in the scope of what Plaintiffs may request under Rules 34 and 45 in this case is negligible. 7 James Wm. Moore et al., Moore's Federal Practice § 34.02[5] (3d ed. 2006) ("With respect to their scope, Rules 34 and 45 should be considered coextensive."). Furthermore, and most importantly, Defendant agreed to construe Plaintiffs' subpoena as a Rule 34 request. (Doc. No. 22, at 4-5 n.1.) Accordingly, Defendant's objection to the document request will be overruled.

B. Discoverability under Rule 26(b)

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b) provides, in relevant part, that "[p]arties may obtain discovery regarding any non-privileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense - including the existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and location of any documents or other tangible things and the identity and location of persons who know of any discoverable matter. . . . Relevant information need not be admissible at the trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence." Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). In this case, Plaintiffs are seeking documents related to teachers' salaries and benefits in CDSD. Plaintiffs argue that such documents are relevant because the Hearing Officer awarded D.E. 10,000 hours of compensatory education and because the preferred method of determining the value of compensatory ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.