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. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT