ILNews

Court sanctions school corporation a third time

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A Northern District magistrate judge has issued sanctions for the third time against Gary Community School Corp. for its lack of cooperation in a suit involving a transgender student.

Magistrate Paul Cherry of the Northern District of Indiana granted plaintiff Kevin "K.K." Logan's third motion for sanctions against the school corporation Jan. 23 in Kevin Logan v. Gary School Corp., et al., No. 2:07-cv-431.

Logan filed suit against the school in December 2007 after he was denied admittance to his high school's prom in 2006 by principal Diane Rouse because he was wearing a pink dress. Rouse cited school policy for not allowing Logan in; however, a female wearing a tuxedo attended the prom.

Magistrate Cherry granted Logan's motion for sanctions, citing the school corporation's long history of non-compliance with court orders as well as federal and local Rules of Civil Procedure. In the Jan. 23 order, the District Court cited the school corporation's failure to comply with some outstanding discovery requests. Even though the school corporation's current attorneys appear to be making a good faith effort to bring the school corporation into compliance, it has "displayed a willful failure to obey court orders and have displayed a pattern of dilatory tactics and contumacious conduct such that additional sanctions are appropriate at this time under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b)," wrote Magistrate Cherry.

Three of Gary School Corp.'s affirmative defenses were struck because they relate to the substance of the discovery sought by Logan. The defenses are that Logan failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted against the school corporation; Logan wasn't permitted to enter the school-sponsored function wearing a pink party dress because the school corporation sought to ensure the safety and welfare of Logan and other students at the event; and Logan wasn't permitted to enter the event wearing the dress because the school corporation sought to prevent substantial disruption and interference at the function.

The school corporation also must pay Logan's reasonable expenses caused by its failure to comply with a Nov. 21, 2008, order. Magistrate Cherry noted that if the school corporation continues non-compliance with court rules and orders, further sanctions may be necessary. Gary School Corp. already had been sanctioned for failure to comply, ordered to pay Logan's costs and expenses for filing his motions to compel, and precluded from introducing any testimony of witnesses or documentary evidence that wasn't initially disclosed under Rule 26(a) without first seeking leave of the District Court and establishing its failure to produce was substantially justified or harmless.

The District Court also granted Gary School Corp.'s revised motion for extension of time to supplement answers to plaintiff's request for production, extending the original Dec. 5, 2008, deadline to Dec. 19, 2008.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Bob Leonard killed two people named Jennifer and Dion Longworth. There were no Smiths involved.

  2. Being on this journey from the beginning has convinced me the justice system really doesn't care about the welfare of the child. The trial court judge knew the child belonged with the mother. The father having total disregard for the rules of the court. Not only did this cost the mother and child valuable time together but thousands in legal fees. When the child was with the father the mother paid her child support. When the child was finally with the right parent somehow the father got away without having to pay one penny of child support. He had to be in control. Since he withheld all information regarding the child's welfare he put her in harms way. Mother took the child to the doctor when she got sick and was totally embarrassed she knew nothing regarding the medical information especially the allergies, The mother texted the father (from the doctors office) and he replied call his attorney. To me this doesn't seem like a concerned father. Seeing the child upset when she had to go back to the father. What upset me the most was finding out the child sleeps with him. Sometimes in the nude. Maybe I don't understand all the rules of the law but I thought this was also morally wrong. A concerned parent would allow the child to finish the school year. Say goodbye to her friends. It saddens me to know the child will not have contact with the sisters, aunts, uncles and the 87 year old grandfather. He didn't allow it before. Only the mother is allowed to talk to the child. I don't think now will be any different. I hope the decision the courts made would've been the same one if this was a member of their family. Someday this child will end up in therapy if allowed to remain with the father.

  3. Ok attorney Straw ... if that be a good idea ... And I am not saying it is ... but if it were ... would that be ripe prior to her suffering an embarrassing remand from the Seventh? Seems more than a tad premature here soldier. One putting on the armor should not boast liked one taking it off.

  4. The judge thinks that she is so cute to deny jurisdiction, but without jurisdiction, she loses her immunity. She did not give me any due process hearing or any discovery, like the Middlesex case provided for that lawyer. Because she has refused to protect me and she has no immunity because she rejected jurisdiction, I am now suing her in her district.

  5. Sam Bradbury was never a resident of Lafayette he lived in rural Tippecanoe County, Thats an error.

ADVERTISEMENT