IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
DARBIANNE G O O DWIN
Civil Action No: l7~cv-02431-TR
v.
P ENNRIDGE S CHOOL DIS TRICT, e t a l.
ORDER
AND NOW, on this da y of
9
2019, upon consideration of
P la intiffs Motion to Re -ope n Discove ry a nd De fe nda nts , P e nnridge S chool Dis trict, J a cque line
Ra ttiga n a nd Gina De Bona 's re s pons e the re to, it is he re by ORDERED a n d DECREED th a t
P la in tiffs Motion is DENIED.
IT IS F UR T HE R O R DE R E D tha t P la in tiff s ha ll ma ke pa yme nt in the a mount of
$2000.00 to Ma rsha ll De nne he y Wa rne r Cole ma n & Goggin, P .C. a s pa rtia l re imburse me nt for
the cos t incu1Ted in re sponding to P la intiffs motion.
Honora ble Timothy Rice
By:
Case 2:17-cv-02431-TR Document 129 Filed 03/29/19 Page 1 of 16
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
DARBIANNE GOODWIN
Civil Action No: 17-cv-02431-TR
v.
PENNRIDGE SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al.
DEFENDANTS' MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S
MOTION TO RE-OPEN DISCOVERY
1 . INTRODUCTION
On October 2, 2018, several months after discovexy closed on May 31, 2018, and on the
eve of this case's former dispositive motion deadline, which was then extended multiple times,
Plaintiff filed a Motion to Compe] Discovery from Defendants. Plaintiffs motion sought to
compel Defendants to review potentially thousands of student disciplinary files. The Court
granted Plaintiffs motion in pan, causing Defendants' counsel to spend in excess of 100 hours
reviewing student disciplinary files that were pulled from storage by Defendants.
Although couched as a motion to "re-open discovery," Pla int iffs present motion is
effectively a motion for reconsideration of this Cour1's October 17, 2018 Order, requesting that
the Cou11 broaden the scope of its prior Order to include additional class years. Not only would
this impose the same burden that this Court already declined to impose upon Defendants over
Eve months ago, but it would force Defendants to incur the cost of having their counsel review,
for a second time, the student files that were already scrutinized once before for records relating
to the 2015-2016 school year-effectively rendering the prior file review a wasted expense. This
wou ld be in a ddi t ion t o t he new s t udent r ecor ds t ha t need t o be r eviewed. T he s a me
proportionality concerns that were at issue when Defendants opposed Plaintiffs last motion are,
therefore, even more compelling now.
Case 2:17-cv-02431-TR Document 129 Filed 03/29/19 Page 2 of 16
Pla intiff ha s wa ived he r right to seek to re -open discove ry by fa iling to ra ise this is sue for
s e ve ra l months a fte r the Cou1't's Octobe r 16, 2018 Orde r wa s e nte re d a nd a fte r the pa rtie s
comple te d a ll dispos itive motion brie fing. While this Court e xcuse d the timing of P la intiffs prior
Motion to Compel-filed over four months a fte r the close of discovery-tha t does not jus tify a
de la y of ove r :tive more months to tile the pre s e nt motion . S e tting a s ide its la ck of me rit
subs tantive ly, the re is no excuse for such a long de lay in filing this motion.
In a dd ition to its un time line s s , P la in tiffs motion is p re mis e d e n tire ly upon a fa ls e
cha ra cte riza tion of the re cords tha t we re produce d by De fe nda nts . Throughout he r motion,
P la intiff repea tedly repre sents to the Court tha t each of the 608 pages of records produced were
la be le d a s "pe e r conflict," knowing full we ll tha t this is not true .1 The docume nts re vie we d did
not conta in la be ls a s to the na ture of the incide nts a nd De fe nda nts ' couns e l did not ma ke
e va lua tions a s to wha t ca te gory the re cords s hould fa ll into, a s this would ine vita bly le a d to a
conte ntion tha t De fe nda nts ' counse l wa s mis la be iing re cords . As such, De fe nda nts wrote in the
e nclos ure le tte r whe n producing the s e docume nts tha t the y "ma y, a n d like ly d o , in c lu d e
incidents that were not classified as peer conflict." See Exhibit 1 hereto, November 16, 2018
enclosure le tte r from K. I-Ie isne r to M. Graves .
None the le s s , P la intiffs couns e l we nt on to s ubmit a De cla ra tion in s upport of P la intiffs
Motion for S umma ry J udgme nt, incorre ctly s ta ting tha t the De fe nda nts la be le d the produce d
re cords a s "pe e r conflict" re cords , without dis clos ing to the ColuI De fe nda nts ' e xpla na tion tha t
the re cords "ma y, a nd like ly do, include incide nts tha t we re not cla s s ifie d a s pe e l* conflict." lD.I.
96~2, '1Il2]. De fe nda nts the n submitte d a De cla ra tion corre cting the e rrors in P la intiff counse l's
De cla ra tion, spe cifica lly a ddre s s ing the ina ccura cy of P la intiff counse l's re pre se nta tions to the
P la intiff ma ke s this mis re pre s e nta tion on a t le a s t te n occa s ions in he r Motion, a nd it
se rves as the centra l underpinning for why she cla ims she is entitled to more discovery.
l
2
Case 2:17-cv-02431-TR Document 129 Filed 03/29/19 Page 3 of 16
Court, in light of the la ngua ge of the Nove mbe r 16, 2018 e nclosure le tte r. [D,I. 111-6, W15-18].
Eve n a fte r doing s o , P la intiff now continue s to mis re pre s e nt the na ture of the docume nts
produced by Defendants and bases her entire motion upon this fa lse premise .
P la intiff ca nnot re a s ona bly cla im tha t he r mis re pre s e nta tion is uninte ntiona l, a fte r the
exact same misrepresenta tion was a lready brought to her a ttention through the parties ' dispositive
motion filings . De fe nda nts re que s t tha t the Court a wa rd a ttorne ys ' fe e s in the a mount of $2000
for the cos t incurre d by De fe nda nts in re s ponding to P la intiffs motion (the a ctua l a mount of
which s ignifica ntly e xce e ds th is numbe r). P la in tiff wa s p la ce d on notice tha t De fe nda nts
cons ide red this motion highly inappropria te and tha t they would seek recove ry of a ttorneys ' fe e s
if P la intiff chos e to proce e d with filing it.
II. FA__CTUAL BACKGROUND
A. Procedural History.
P la intiff ins titute d this a ction by filing a Compla int on Ma y 30, 2017 a nd a n Ame nde d
Compla int on June 29, 2017. [D.I. 8]. P la intiff a lle ge s tha t she wa s ra pe d by a P e nnridge High
School s tudent in the pa rking lot of an off-campus res taurant on December 27, 2014 and tha t she
wa s ha ra s se d while a s tude nt a t P e nnridge High S chool. He r Ame nde d Compla int a lle ge s tha t
he r cons titutiona l a nd civil rights we re viola te d a nd tha t s he s uffe re d ha lm a s a re s ult of the
alleged rape and harassment. See id, 1115.
The re levant da tes to the present motion to re -open discovery a re as follows :
• Ma y 31, 2018; Discove ry is close d pursua nt to the Fe brua ry 7, 2018 S che duling
Orde r. [D.I. 39].
August 30- 2018.: De a dline for e xpe rt re polfs . [D.I. 78].
• Augus t 30, 2018: E-ma il from P la intiffs couns e l to de fe ns e couns e l, na rrowing
broad discovery reques ts . [D.I. 87~17].
• September 28, 2018: De a dline for re butta l e xpe rt re ports . [D.I. 78].
3
Case 2:17-cv-02431-TR Document 129 Filed 03/29/19 Page 4 of 16
• Octobe r 2, 2018: P la intiff file s he r Motion to Compe l Dis cove ry, re la ting to Ma y
1, 2018 discovery requests tha t were answered on May 31, 2018. [D.1. 81].
• Octobe r 17, 2018: Court Orde r is e nte re d gra nting P la intiffs Motion to Cornpe l,
in pa rt, a nd compe lling production of a portion of the na n'owe d s e t of re cords
re que s te d in P la intiff couns e l's Augus t 30, 2018 e -ma il. [D.I. 83]. The Court
de cline d to find tha t the motion wa s untime ly due to a ie s s tha n one month de la y
from whe n ne gotia tions re ga rding the dis cove ry dis pute ce a s e d a nd whe n the
Motion to Compe i wa s file d. M
• Nove mbe r 16 , 2018: De fe nda nts produce d docume nts re s pons ive tO Court's
Orde r, a fte r spending ove r 100 hours reviewing an e s tima ted tens of thousands of
pages of s tudent tile s and othe r documents . P la intiffs counse l was advised a t the
time of production tha t, from the records reviewed, "a ll re cords involving a sexua l
or ge nde r-ba s e d de roga tory te rm, ge s ture , or conduct be twe e n s tude nts we re
produce d" a nd tha t the 608 pa ge s of docume nts produce d "ma y, a nd like ly do,
include incide nts tha t we re not cla s s ifie d a s pe e r conflict." See Exhibit 1 he re to.
At the time o f th is re co rds p roduc tion , P la in tiff wa s re p re s e n te d by e igh t
a ttorneys .
• De ce mbe r 18, 2018: An a ttorne y confe re nce ca ll wa s he ld with the Court, a t
which time P la intiffs counse l ma de no me ntion of a re que s t to re -ope n discove ry
ba s e d upon the conte nt of the 608 pa ge s of re cords produce d ove r one month
e a rlie r.
• December 19, 2018: Court Orde r is e nte re d, e xte nding the da te for filing motions
for summa ry judgme nt for a se cond time . [D.I. 93],
• J a nua ry 14, 2019: Motions for S umma ry J udgme nt a re file d in Goodwin, No
me ntion is ma de by P la intiff of a re que s t to re ~ope n dis cove ry ba s e d upon the
content of the 608 pages of records produced two months ea rlie r. [D.I. 96] .
• Fe brua ry 28, 2019: P la intiff a nnounce s , for the firs t time , in a footnote to he r
Re ply Brie f in S upport of Motion for S umma ry Judgme nt, tha t she inte nds to file
a Motion to Re -ope n Dis cove ry a nd re que s t re cords from the 201647 s chool
ye a r. [D.I. 124, p. 18, fh.9].
• Ma rch 6 , 2019: Couns e l a re s e nt a n e -ma il from the de puty to the Honora ble
Timothy R. Rice , U.S .M.J . re que s ting confinna tion tha t counse l a re pre pa re d to
go to tria l on June 24, 2019. Defendants ' counse l responds tha t they a re ready and
P la intiffs counse l re sponds , "We ne e d to discuss this is sue with our clie nt. Once
we ha ve spoke n with he r, we ca n le t you know wha t the pla intiff" s pos ition is on
whe the r we should ke e p the curre nt tria l da te . We will ge t ba ck to you promptly."
No mention is made by P la intiff of a reques t to re -open discove ry based upon the
content of the 608 pages of records produced three and one ha lf months earlie r.
4
Case 2:17-cv-02431-TR Document 129 Filed 03/29/19 Page 5 of 16
• Ma rch 7, 2019: Couns e l a re informe d by the Court tha t the tria l will be ke pt on
schedule .
• Ma rch 18 , 2019: P la intiffs couns e l conta cts De fe nda nts ' couns e l to infonn of
in te n tion to file the pre s e n t motion a nd a s ks whe the r De fe nda nts cons e nt.
De fe nda nts re s pond s a me da y tha t the y do not cons e nt, tha t the timing of the
motion is imprope r, tha t the s ubs ta nce of the motion is imprope r, a nd tha t the y
will se e k a ttorne y's fe e s if the motion is file d.
Ma rch 21, 2019: P la intiff file s the pre se nt motion.
As outlined above , ove r four months passed be tween the close of discovery in this ma tte r
•
a nd P la intiffs prior Motion to Compe l, during which time e xpe rt dis cove ry wa s comple te d a nd
fa ct dis cove ry wa s a lre a dy clos e d. During the one month be twe e n whe n the Court gra nte d, in
pa lt, P la in tiffs Motion to Compe l a nd De fe nda n ts p roduce d the re s pons ive docume n ts ,
De fendants spent ove r 100 hours reviewing an e s tima ted tens of thousands of pages of s tudent
file s a nd othe r docume nts . P la intiff, who is re pre se nte d by e ight a ttorne ys , now conte nds tha t
the re is "no doubt" tha t the de lay of ove r four months to review and file a motion based upon the
608 pages of records tha t we re produced by Defendants was unavoidable and somehow shows
due diligence . See P la intiffs Brie f, p. 14.
B. P roportiona lity Conc e rns .
De fe nda nts ha ve a lre a dy incurre d a pproxima te ly 109 hours in le ga l fe e s in orde r to
comply with this Cou1't's Octobe r 16, 2018 Orde r. Depos itions taken for this and the companion
Doe ma tte r a mount to a pproxima te ly 102.5 hours . Ne a rly 4000 pa ge s of re cords ha ve be e n
loca te d a nd produce d by De fe nda nts in re sponse to swe e ping discove ry re que s ts from P la intiff
on a litany of subjects , including Defendants ' policie s and practices .
De fendants we re required to addre ss numerous discove ry dispute s with P la intiff, both a s
to De fe nda nts ' re que s ts for dis cove ry fiom P la intiff a nd vice ve rs a . For ins ta nce , De fe nda nts
we re force d to file multiple motions re la ting to e ffo1"ls to compe l a n inde pe nde nt me dica l
5
Case 2:17-cv-02431-TR Document 129 Filed 03/29/19 Page 6 of 16
e xa mina tion be ca us e P la intiff would not dis clos e whe the r s he curre ntly s uffe rs from P TS D,
which is me ntione d s e ve ra l time s in he r Ame nde d Compla int, on the ba s is tha t he r couns e l
sugges ted "an inability to unde rs tand bas ic vocabula ry such a s 'cunently' and/or 'suffe ring."' [D.I.
75]. P la intiff a ls o obje cte d to the P e nnridge Re giona l P olice De pa rtme nt a nd Be dmins te r
Township P olice De pa rtme nt re le a s ing re cords re la ting to the inve s tiga tion of he r a lle ge d ra pe ,
leading the police depa rtments ' counse l to file a motion to quash tha t Defendants were forced to
oppos e . [D.I. 47]. Be ginning on or a round J a nua ry 4 , 2018, De fe nda nts ' couns e l re ce ive d
monthly, a nd s ome time s we e kly, dis cove ry de ficie ncy le tte rs from P la intiffs couns e l (ma ny of
which were seve ra l pages in length), a sse rting purported discove ry de ficiencie s , and re sponded
to e a ch of the s e . Although no dis cove ry motion wa s file d by P la intiff until Octobe r 2, 2018,
substantia l time and expense went into responding to these discovery le tte rs .
In sum, the cos ts of this ca se ha ve fa r e xce e de d wha t is re a sona ble in light of P la intiffs
a lle ge d injurie s . Ms . Goodwin is a tte nding colle ge a nd doing we ll in he r course work, while a lso
ma inta ining e mplo}nne nt. Although the pa rtie s dis a gre e a s to P la intiffs cha ra cte riza tion of he r
grades during he r sophomore and junior yea rs of high school, she acknowledges in the summary
judgment motion papers tha t she was a high academic pe rformer by no la te r than he r senior yea r
a t P HS , e ve n ta king s ome colle ge le ve l cours e s a t Bucks County Community Colle ge . Once
Court-Orde re d to provide s tra ightforwa rd re s pons e s to De fe nda nts ' Re que s ts for Admis s ions
regarding he r a lleged PTSD symptoms, P la intiff admitted in he r supplementa l re sponses tha t she
"doe s not inte nd to introduce e vide nce of a curre nt DS M condition-be it de pre ss ion, a nxie ty, or
any othe r medica l diagnos is" a t the time of tria l.
At s ome point, dis cove ry mus t come to a n e nd. De fe nda nts ' couns e l ha s s pe nt we ll in
e xce s s of 1000 hours de fe nding this a ction a nd the litiga tion ha s ta ke n a s ignifica nt e motiona l
6
Case 2:17-cv-02431-TR Document 129 Filed 03/29/19 Page 7 of 16
to ll on the individua l de fe nda nts . S umma ry judgme nt motions we re fully brie fe d prior to
P la intiffs motion a nd the pa rtie s a re on the e ve of tria l. P la intiffs a tte mpt to furthe r de la y the
dispos ition of this case is s imply inappropria te .
c . Plaintiff's Argument Regarding the Importance of these Records is Based
Upon a False Premise.
Initia lly, De fe nda nts re ite ra te tha t the ir Nove mbe r 2018 production did not cons is t
entire ly of incidents tha t were labeled as "peer conflict," even though tha t is a ll tha t was required
by the Court's Order. In fact, the documents tha t Defendants ' counsel reviewed were not labeled
a s a nything othe r tha n the va rious s tude nts ' dis cipline file s . As a re s ult, in the cours e of
reviewing hundreds , if not thous ands of s tudent file s , De fendants ' couns e l would have had to
make subjective de terminations as to whether an incident cons tituted peer conflict, haras sment,
01° s omething e ls e in orde r to a s s es s whe the r the documents fit into the s cope of this Court's
Order compelling the production of "records conta ining repo1"ts , inves tigations , and/or discipline
pe 1Ta ining to pe e r conflict involving a s e xua l or ge nde r-ba s e d de roga tory te rm, ge s ture , or
conduct." Ra ther than limiting the production to only records involving "peer conflict" incidents ,
Defendants produced from the ir records review, "a ll records involving a s exual or gender-based
de roga tory te rm, ges ture , or conduct be tween s tudents "-and s pecifica lly expla ined to P la intiff
a t the time these records were produced that the production went beyond the scope of what was
required by the Order. See Exhibit 1.
P la intiffs omis s ion of this importa nt fa ct from a ll of the ir s ubmis s ions to the Couri is
troubling, a s the ir e ntire a rgume nt for why the s e re cords a re s o critica l is tha t De fe nda nts
a llegedly misclas s ified reports of haras sment as peer conflict. Yet, this is a comple te fabrica tion.
P la intiff is s imply ignoring fa cts in orde r to s upport a ne w the ory-one ne ve r e ve n ple d in this
cas e -tha t Defendants had a policy or cus tom of labe ling ha ras s ment incidents a s pee r conflict
7
Case 2:17-cv-02431-TR Document 129 Filed 03/29/19 Page 8 of 16
s o tha t the y would not ha ve to inve s tiga te the m. To the contra ry, De fe nda nts conducte d
inve s tiga tions e ve n whe n the incide nt did not ris e a bove the le ve l of pe e r conflict. Ofte n time s ,
these issues would be resolved informally, such as through discuss ions .
Furthe rmore , to force De fe nda nts to re s pond to P la intiffs ba ld a ccus a tions tha t a ction
wa s not ta ke n me re ly be ca use she doe s not ha ve a docume nt summa rizing wha t wa s done is
h igh ly p re jud ic ia l to De fe nda nts . It is s imply no t fe a s ib le to re bu t e ve ry uns ubs ta n tia te d
a llega tion made by P la intiff, pa rticula rly when she makes e rroneous assumptions as to events for
which she has no pe rsona l knowledge . For ins tance , one of the records cited by P la intiff re fe rs to
a re port by a s tude nt tha t, in April 2016, s he wa s "force fully pull[e d]" onto a ma le s tude nt a nd
the ma le s tude nt "trie d to go unde r [he r] clothe s a nd down [he r] pa nts ." See P la intiffs Brie f, p .
li. Without a ny informa tion othe r tha n the s tude nt's writte n re poit, P la intiff re lie s upon the
re p o rt to a s s u me th a t th is in c id e n t a c tu a lly o ccu rre d a n d th a t P HS d id n o t re p o N it in
P owe rS chool be ca use the y mis la be le d it a s "pe e r conflict." This is obvious ly not a pe e r conflict
incide nt, but tha t is not the re a s on for why it wa s not 1° e po11e d in P owe rS chool. Ra the r, the
incident was not reported as harassment because a review of the bus video footage for the a lleged
incide nt showe d tha t the ma le s tude nt wa s not e ve n on the bus .2 As e xpla ine d be low, a lle ge d
incidents tha t a re de termined not to have happened are not repoNed in PowerSchool.
D. P la in tiff wa s o n No tic e th a t Un fo u n d e d Re p o rts o f Ha ra s s m e n t we re n o t
Inc luded in PowerSchool Well Before the Clos e of Dis covery.
P la intiff acknowledges in he r Motion to Re -open Discove ry tha t Defendants re sponded to
P la intiffs Re que s t for P roduction of Docume nts , No. 2 by obje cting3 a nd producing the "S a fe
2 If the Court wishe s , De fe nda nts will supply a n a ffida vit for furthe r support.
Defendants objected on the basis tha t the Request was overly broad, unduly burdensome,
not re levant, vague , harassing, oppressive , not propoltional to the needs of the case , and sought
3
8
Case 2:17-cv-02431-TR Document 129 Filed 03/29/19 Page 9 of 16
Schools" report for PHS for the 2013 to 2017. P la intiff then sent Defendants ' counse l a discovery
de tlcie ncy le tte r da te d Ja nua ry 3, 2018, seeking documents re la ting to othe r s tudents ' reports of
harassment. See Exhibit 2 , a tta che d he re to , pp . 2-3 (J a nua ry 3 , 2018 le tte r from P la in tiffs
counse l). P la intiffs counse l ra ise d the is sue a ga in on Ma y 25, 2018, through a nothe r le tte r. See
Exhibit 3, a ttached he re to, p. 6.
P la intiff wa s a ls o on notice tha t cla ims for s e xua l a s s a ult would not be e nte re d into
P owe rS chool a nd, thus , not include d in the S a fe S chools Re port, if the s chool a nd/or police
de te rmine d tha t the incide nt did not ha ppe n. For e xa mple , the re port dis cus s e d a bove whe re
video evidence demons tra ted tha t the s tudent was lying about the incident was not ente red into
Powe1° Schoo1.4 Principa l Gina DeBona specifica lly expla ined this to P la intiffs counse l during the
firs t da y ofhe r de pos ition, on Fe brua ry 6, 2018. See Exhibit 4, a tta che d he re to, p. 93:12-18 ("Q:
S o for le t's s a y a cla im like se xua l a s sa ult, if you re ce ive d a compla int of s e xua l a s sa ult from a
s tudent aga ins t anothe r s tudent tha t was not - tha t was - the school de te rmined did not happen,
would tha t be logge d he re ? " A: No.")
documents tha t a re not limited to the facts and circumstances of P la intiffs cla ims, a s we ll a s
conce rns re la ting to FERPA.
4 P la intiffs a re a ls o we ll a wa re from multiple witne s s e s ' te s timony a nd the a ffida vit of
Chie f Rodne y Bla uke of P e nnridge Re giona l P olice De pa rtme nt tha t P S D doe s not ha ve full
control ove r how incidents a re labe led and whedie r they a re included in the Sa fe Schools Report,
a s the loca l police de pa rtme nt mus t a ls o a gre e on the coding/cla s s ifica tions of re porta ble
offenses. See Exhibit 28 to De fs . MS J (Affida vit of Chie f Rodne y Bla ke ); Exhibit 16 to De fs .
MS J , pp. 97:23-98:18 (te s timony of Da vid La bos ki); Exhibit 8 to De fs . MS J , pp. 67:18-68:1
(te s timony of J a cque line Ra ttiga n); Exhibit 13 to De fs . MS J , pp. 58:13-59:2 (te s timony of Troy
P rice ).
9
Case 2:17-cv-02431-TR Document 129 Filed 03/29/19 Page 10 of 16
111. ARGUMENT
A. P la in tiff's Mo tio n is Un time ly.
The firs t of the three factors to be cons ide red in whe the r to re -open discove ry is whe the r
the moving pa rty's la ck of dilige nce or the oppos ing pa r'ty's conduct contribute d to the de la y.
"With respect to diligence, to establish good cause, the party seeking an extension should show
that more diligent pursuit was impossible." Trask v. Olin Corp., 298 F.R.D. 244, 268 (WD. Pa.
2014) (e mpha s is s upplie d). P la intiff s e e ks to minimize this fa ctor, cla iming tha t the re is "no
doubt" tha t they sa tis fy this e lement because the Coult did not accept the untime liness a rgument
s e t forth in De fe nda nts ' Re s pons e to P la intiffs Octobe r 2018 Motion to Compe i. See P la in tiffs
Brie f, p. 14.
How this Court rule d on a Motion to Compe l tha t wa s Ble d ne a rly s ix months a go ha s no
re levance to the time liness of the pre sent motion. P la intiff offe rs threadba re re s is tance for why a
de la y of ove r four months should not cons titute a la ck of due dilige nce . He r cla im tha t the e ight
a ttorne ys who a re re pre se nting he r in this ca se could not re vie w 608 pa ge s of docume nts in a
more time ly ma nne r is e ntire ly impla us ible , pa rticula rly whe n vie we d a ga ins t the ba ckdrop of
De fe nda nts ' re quire me nt to re vie w te ns of thousa nds of pa ge s of docume nts in jus t 30 da ys in
response to this Cou11's Order, a task which took well over 100 hours to comp1ete .5
De fe nda nts -pa rticula rly the individua l de fe nda nts to this a ction--a re e a ge r to proce e d
to tria l if the ir d is pos itive motions a re no t gra n te d . The s tre s s of th is litiga tion a s we ll a s
P la intiffs me dia ca mpa ign to poitra y the m a s unca ring towa rd the ir s tude nts ha s ta ke n a n
e normous e motiona l toll a nd the y do not wa nt a ny furthe r de la ys in the re solution of this ca se .
P la intiffs prior Motion to Compe l re que s te d tha t De fe nda nts be give n jus t 15 da ys to
re vie w thre e time s a s ma ny cla s s ye a rs a nd re da ct a ll minors ' na me s to a void the re porting
requirements of FERPA. She cannot jus tifiably cla im tha t it was not poss ible for he r own counse l
to review a mere 608 pages within a s imila r timeframe .
5
1 0
Case 2:17-cv-02431-TR Document 129 Filed 03/29/19 Page 11 of 16
Re-opening discove ry a t this time not only force s De fendants to incur even more cos ts in a ca se
which has a lready we ll-exceeded the bounds of propoltiona lity, but it forces Defendants to e ithe r
pote ntia lly de la y the dispos ition of this ca se ol* forgo ce rta in de fe nse s by limiting discove ry only
to thos e is s ue s tha t P la intiff be lie ve s will s upport he r ne w a lle ga tions .6 Dis cove ry in this ca s e
was extens ive and Defendants a re adamantly opposed to re~opening it nea rly a yea r a fte r it has
be e n clos e d. The y re s pe ctfully re que s t tha t this Court e xe rcis e its broa d dis cre tion to de ny
P la intiffs re que s t.
B. P la in tiffs Re que s te d Re lie f is High ly P re jud ic ia l.
De fe nda nts did not se e k de pos itions from the police de pa rtme nts involve d in cla s s ifying
the se re poits , s ince P la intiffs la te s t the ory wa s not a sse rte d until months a fte r discove ry close d.
Even if the Cou1"c were to look beyond the proportiona lity conce rns posed by P la intiffs des ire to
turn he r ca se into se ve ra l ca se s -within-the -ca se (i.e ., forcing De fe nda nts to e s ta blish tha t the ir
inve s tiga tion a nd othe r a ctions ta ke n in re s pons e to va rious othe r s tude nts ' incide nts we re
a ppropria te ), it is now too la te for De fe nda nts to de ve lop a dis cove ry pla n for re butting the s e
ba re a lle ga tions . This would be pa rticula rly true if P la intiffs re que s t to conta ct the s e s tude nts
we re gra nte d, s ince De fe nda nts would be e ntitle d to de pose a ny such s tude nts , a s we ll a s the
s tudents accused of wrongful behavior.
The timing o f P la in tiffs re que s t to s o lic it fo rme r P S D s tude n ts to con ta c t the m is
puzzling, s ince such a re que s t wa s ne ve r ma de until the pre se nt motion. De fe nda nts produce d
re cords pe rta ining to incide nts cla s s ifie d a s ha ra s s me nt during dis cove ry in this ma tte r, a nd
Pla intiff neve r once made a reques t to be put in contact with s tudents involved in othe r incidents ,
P la intiff proposes tha t he r counse l be given the opportunity the inte rview former PSD
students outs ide of die presence of defense counse l forecloses Defendants from the ability to
depose them.
6
11
Case 2:17-cv-02431-TR Document 129 Filed 03/29/19 Page 12 of 16
including the s tude nts re fe re nce d in he r lia bility e xpe 1't's re port. See Exhib it 82 to P la in tiffs
Motion fo r S umma ry J udgme nt, pp . 7 -8 (Howe Re port, s umma riz ing inc ide n ts o f s e xua l
ha ra ssme nt from re cords produce d through discove ry). In fa ct, e ve n in the footnote to P la intiffs
Re p ly in S upport o f Motion fo r S umma ry J udgme nt, whe re the pos s ib ility o f re -ope n ing
discove ry was ra ised for the firs t time , the re is no mention of seeking to depose new witnesses .7
[D.I. 124, p. 18, fn.9].
Notwiths ta nding P la intiffs re pre s e nta tion tha t the y do not s e e k to re -ope n dis cove ry to
oppose Defendants ' Motion for Summary Judgment, it seems tha t the ir request to search for other
s tude nts is in dire ct re s pons e to De fe nda nts ' a rgume nt tha t P la intiff ha s fa ile d to ide ntify a ny
othe r s tude nts be s ide s he r a nd J a ne Doe in s upport of he r Mone ll cla ims . P la intiffs cun° e nt
pos ition-ie ., tha t the s e re cords a re in° e 1e va nt to the pe nding dis pos itive motions -is a ls o in
dire ct contra diction to the ir comme nts le a ding up to the prior Motion to Cornpe l, whe n the y
cla ime d tha t the re cords "a re c ritica l for proving [P la intiffs ] cla im of unla wful dis crimina tion
ba s e d on [De fe nda nts '] cus tom or pra ctice in fa iling to a de qua te ly a ddre s s cla ims of s e xua l
ha ra s s me nt." S e e Exhib it 5 to P la in tiffs Motion , pp . 1 -2 (Augus t 30 , 2018 e -ma il from K.
Ruffing) (e mpha s is supplie d).
Even if P la intiff were correct tha t the records produced by Defendants in November 2018
showe d incide nts involving ha ra ssme nt be ing cla s s iiie d a s pe e r conflict (a cla im which is ba se d
upon a bla tant misrepresenta tion, a s expla ined ea rlie r), tha t is exactly wha t P la intiffs cla ime d tha t
the y would find whe n the y file d the Motion to Compe l. P la intiff is s e e mingly a tte mpting to a lte r
th is Court's vie w of the pe nding s umma ry judgme nt motions through the pre s e nt motion ,
The re is a ls o no me ntion of s e e king re cords from the 2014~2015 s chool ye a r in tha t
footnote . Defendants s till possess records for the 2016-2017 school yea r but may no longer have
s tudent file s from the 2014-2015 school yea r.
7
1 2
Case 2:17-cv-02431-TR Document 129 Filed 03/29/19 Page 13 of 16
sugges ting tha t more evidence exis ts to support the ir Mone ll cla ims be yond jus t wha t is cite d in
the ir dispos itive motion.
IV. c o n c LUs I018
For the fore going re a s ons , De fe nda nts re s pe ctfully re que s t tha t this Honora ble Court
de ny P la intiffs Motion to Re -Ope n Dis cove ry. P la intiffs motion is e xtre me ly untime ly, a s it is
ba s e d upon re cords produce d in Nove mbe r 2018 following a Motion to Compe l which wa s ,
its e lf, borde ring on untirne line s s . The la te dis cove ry tha t P la intiff s e e ks fa r e xce e ds wha t is
proportiona l for this case and would result in a s ignificant expense to Defendants in a case where
the e xpe nse of discove ry ha s a lre a dy fa r e xce e de d wha t is wa rra nte d in proportion to P la intiffs
a lle ge d ha rm. More ove r, a llowing the d is cove ry propos e d by P la in tiff would be e xtre me ly
pre judicia l to De fe nda nts , who would e ithe r be fore clos e d 8° om ta king dis cove ry to de fe nd
a ga ins t P la intiffs la te s t a lle ga tions or re que s t tha t discove ry be re -ope ne d e ntire ly. De fe nda nts
a re e a ge r to bring this ca se to its conclus ion a nd a re s trongly oppose d to a ny a ction tha t would
de la y its dispos ition.
Fina lly, P la intiffs motion is e ntire ly without me rit be ca us e it is ba s e d upon the fa ls e
c la im th a t th e re co rd s p ro d u ce d in No ve mb e r 2 0 1 8 we re a ll la b e le d "p e e r co n flic t" b y
De fe nda nts . P la intiffs e ntire motion is ba se d upon this fa ls e pre mise a nd should, the re fore , be
denied for this reason a lone . Furthe r, this mis representa tion is clea rly de libe ra te , s ince this exact
is s ue wa s a lre a dy ra is e d a nd a ddre s s e d by De fe nda nts in the dis pos itive motion brie fing.
De fe nda nts should be a wa rde d re imburse me nt of the a ttorne y's fe e s the y ha ve be e n force d to
e xpe nd in re sponding to this frivolous motion.
13
Case 2:17-cv-02431-TR Document 129 Filed 03/29/19 Page 14 of 16
Re spe ctfully submitte d,
MARSHALL DENNEHEY WARNER
COLEMAN & GOGGIN
BY:
DATE: 3/29/19
A"/_ /o J 'g p 8 _ /T fa n ta ra fze
Joseph J . Santarone , Esquire (ID# PA45723)
Jane E. Kane , Esquire (ID# PA46585)
Kyle M. He isne r, Esquire (ID# P A309733)
2000 Marke t S tree t, Suite 2300
Philade lphia , PA 19103
215-575» 2600
jj santa rone@mdwcg.com
je ka ne @mdwcg.com
kmhe isne r@mdwcg.com
Atforne ys for De fe nda nts
1 4
Case 2:17-cv-02431-TR Document 129 Filed 03/29/19 Page 15 of 16
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
DARBIANNE GOODWIN
Civil Action No: 17-cv-02431-TR
PENNRIDGE SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, KYLE M. HEISNER, ESQUIRE, do hereby certify that a true and con'ect copy of
Defendants' Response to Plaintiffs Motion to Re-Open Discovery was electronically filed with
the Court on the date set forth below and is available for viewing and downloading from the ECF
System. All counsel of record were served via electronic notification and/or e-mail.
Respectfully submitted,
MARSHALL DENNEHEY WARNER
COLEMAN & GOGGIN
9
BY:
DATE: 3/29/19
v.
Kyle M. Heisner, Esquire (ID# PA309733)
2000 Market Street, Suite 2300
Philadelphia, PA 19103
215-575-2600
kmheisner@mdwcg.com
Atforneysfor Defendants
Case 2:17-cv-02431-TR Document 129 Filed 03/29/19 Page 16 of 16
