After this court denied defendant's motion for return of documents and granted plaintiff leave to propound more than twenty-five interrogatories, defendant served its second set of discovery responses again objecting to most of the interrogatories and document requests based on FERPA. On 12 October 2003, defendant issued its discovery responses objecting to many of the interrogatories because a motion to return documents was pending and because the plaintiff exceeded the numerical limit for interrogatories and objecting to most of plaintiff's thirty-five requests for production of documents because the documents were allegedly protected under FERPA. Plaintiff initially served her interrogatories, requests for admission, and requests for production of documents on defendant on 6 June 2003, serving them a second time after the case was removed to federal court on 27 June 2003. § 1232g, and, if so, whether their discovery is nonetheless permissible under one of the enumerated exceptions or by court order. The specific issues raised by this discovery dispute are whether incident reports related to altercations between substitute teachers and students, student and employee witness statements related to these incidents, and information related to subsequent discipline, if any, imposed on the substitute teachers are covered by the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act ("FERPA"), 20 U.S.C. Williams, Esq., Wilkerson & Associates, Cleveland, OH, for Defendant.īefore this Court is a discovery dispute between the parties involving Plaintiff's Combined Second Set of Interrogatories, Requests for Admission, and Request for Production of Documents. Kehoe, Esq., Keller & Kehoe, Cleveland, OH, for Plaintiff.Įrnest L.
Udine ELLIS, Guardian for Lateasha Pendergrass PlaintiffĬLEVELAND MUNICIPAL SCHOOL DISTRICT Defendant.
0 kommentar(er)
