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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  2. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  3. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

  4. Mazel Tov to the newlyweds. And to those bakers, photographers, printers, clerks, judges and others who will lose careers and social standing for not saluting the New World (Dis)Order, we can all direct our Two Minutes of Hate as Big Brother asks of us. Progress! Onward!

  5. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

ADVERTISEMENT