The opinion of the court was delivered by: Donetta W. Ambrose Senior Judge, U.S. District Court
In this civil action, Plaintiffs seek de novo review of a Hearing Officer's decision that failed to remedy alleged deficiencies in the District's treatment of the minor Plaintiff, pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act ("IDEIA"), 20 U.S.C. ' 1400, et seq., and also seeks redress for Defendant's alleged violations of the IDEIA, in its failure to provide the minor Plaintiff with a free appropriate public education ("FAPE"), an appropriate Individualized Educational Program ("IEP"), and appropriate placement; failure to provide the Parents with proper procedural and participation rights; failure to generally implement to IDEIA, its regulations, and analogous state laws; violations of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. ' 794, and the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. ' 12101. Before the Court is Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel more complete responses to their Interrogatories and Requests for Production. For the following reasons, the Motion to Compel will be granted in part and denied in part.
"The party seeking the order to compel must demonstrate the relevance of the information sought. The burden then shifts to the opposing party, who must demonstrate in specific terms why a discovery request does not fall within the broad scope of discovery or is otherwise privileged or improper." Option One Mortgage Corp. v. Fitzgerald, No. 3:07-cv-1877, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18827 (M.D. Pa. Mar. 11, 2009). Pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, parties may obtain discovery regarding "any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to any party's claim or defense." Fed.R.C.P. 26(b)(1).
A. Interrogatory Nos. 1 and 2
Interrogatory Nos. 1 and 2 request a fairly broad range of in-depth information regarding the prevalence and educational treatment of other students with Autism or Mental Retardation within the Defendant School District -- such as diagnoses, placement, enrollment and registration records, details about programming and therapy, and details about IEPs. Defendant resists providing such information, on privacy and relevance grounds. Plaintiffs assert that the information is relevant to the Defendant's policies and practices regarding such students, as well as the availability of appropriate treatment for the minor Plaintiff. The IDEIA and similar statutes, however, involve highly individualized issues -- indeed, the gist of Plaintiffs' Complaint is that Defendant's approach was overly generic, and failed to attend to the minor Plaintiff's unique situation. Because this matter involves no constitutional or differential treatment claims, the potential relevance of Defendant's policies and practices, vis-A-vis students other than the minor Plaintiff, is unclear.*fn1 In other words, Plaintiffs have not established that the requested information regarding other students is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Moreover, Plaintiff does not address the various privacy and confidentiality laws on which Defendant relies. Generally speaking, information about students other than the minor Plaintiff is not discoverable in cases such as this one. Cf. Loch v. Bd. of Educ., No. 6-17-MJR, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 836 (S. D. Ill. Jan. 7, 2008). Because Plaintiffs have not demonstrated otherwise, I will deny the Motion to Compel in that regard.
It is certainly possible that the depths of these two Interrogatories
conceal several nuggets that are linked to the allegations of
Plaintiffs' Complaint, and appropriately disclosed.*fn2
I find only one: Plaintiffs' Complaint alleges that one of
the reasons his placement was inappropriate is the lack of peers, or
changing group of peers, in the autistic support classroom. He is
entitled to discover information relating to these contentions, which
is fairly encompassed by Interrogatory No. 1, and the disclosure of
which would not run afoul of privacy restrictions. Defendant shall
identify the number of students, during the five past academic years
(including the current academic year), placed in that classroom. The
Motion to Compel is granted solely to that extent.
As regards Interrogatory No. 5, Plaintiffs assert that the Defendants failed to respond adequately to specific questions, with respect to individually identified representatives of the School District. Defendant responded to the Interrogatory with a vagueness and ambiguity
objection, and then by referring generically to testimony given in the due process hearing, and offering brief, unattributed summaries of assertions from that testimony. Merely referring to testimony in another proceeding is insufficient.*fn3 See Susquehanna Commer. Fin., Inc. v. Vascular Res., Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 127125, at *24-25 (M.D. Pa. Dec. 1, 2010). Moreover, the Interrogatory is neither vague nor ambiguous, and Defendant failed to particularize its response with respect to the individuals identified in ...