Fed Suit HCDE Response To Motion To Compel Bullard

T16-0149
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
CHATTANOOGA DIVISION
JOHN DOE )
by and through his next friend JANE DOE
)
)
PLAINTIFF )
)
V. ) No. 1:16-CV-00373
) JURY DEMAND
HAMILTON COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION,)
d/b/a HAMILTON COUNTY SCHOOLS; et al )
)
DEFENDANTS. )
RICHARD ROE, et al )
)
PLAINTIFFS )
)
V. ) No. 1:16-cv-00497
) JURY DEMAND
HAMILTON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF )
EDUCATION, d/b/a HAMILTON COUNTY )
SCHOOLS; et al )
)
DEFENDANTS. )
DEFENDANT, HAMILTON COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION’S, RESPONSE TO

PLAINTIFFS’ JOINT MOTION TO COMPEL
The Defendant, Hamilton County Board of Education, hereafter referred to as

“HCBOE,” responds to the Plaintiffs’ Joint Motion to Compel as follows:
Case 1:16-cv-00373-TRM-CHS Document 136 Filed 12/29/17 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: 1057

1. At all relevant times Ms. Courtney Bullard provided legal advice to
HCBOE.
On March 22, 2016, the HCBOE retained Attorney Courtney Bullard to conduct an
investigation into the incident that is the subject of Plaintiffs’ Complaint. Attached hereto
as Exhibit 1 is the Retention letter. As evidenced by the retention letter, Ms. Bullard
was to provide legal advice to the HCBOE. The terms of the retention include the
following: “Pursuant to this agreement, you will be responsible for conducting an
independent review and for providing legal advice to HCBOE as part of that review.” In
addition, Ms. Bullard “would be overseen by the attorney for the HCBOE, Mr. Scott
Bennett.” “We will ask you to provide periodic reports to Mr. Bennett, and on occasion
meet with the Board of Education to discuss your progress.” HCBOE retained Ms.
Bullard to conduct the investigation. Contrary to the Plaintiffs’ assertion that Ms. Bullard
simply addressed the “Culture of Ooltewah High School,” Ms. Bullard conducted a
comprehensive, seven week investigation and throughout her investigation she
“provided regular updates to the school board attorney, Mr. Scott Bennett”. See Bullard
report at page 3. Ms. Bullard also provided the school board with her preliminary
findings and Recommendations of the External investigation before the completion of
her investigation. Id. at page 1. On August 4, 2016, Attorney Bullard submitted her
finding via the Report of External Investigation. That investigation is attached hereto as
Exhibit No. 2.
As evidenced by her report, Ms. Bullard applied federal law regarding claims of
sexual harassment and used “preponderance of the evidence as the standard of proof.”
Id. at page 3. In addition, Ms. Bullard addressed the issue of Title IX stating’ “that with
respect to the freshman who was physically injured, I found that the HCBOE had
satisfied its Title IX obligations in its response. Mr. Montgomery and the other adults
present in the cabin took immediate action to identify and eliminate the hostile
environment and address its effects once on notice. Mr. Montgomery attempted to
ascertain what happened, promptly sought medical care for the victim, and quickly
notified his family. Once the police became involved, the coaches followed directives,
kept the assailants separate from the victim pursuant to the detective’s
recommendations, and ultimately drove the assailants back to Chattanooga in the early
morning hours of December 23rd” See Id. at page 11-13.
As evidenced by her report, not only did she address the culture of Ooltewah High
School, but Ms. Bullard determined whether Title IX had been violated as to the incident
in question. Against the backdrop of the work performed by Ms. Bullard, Ms. Bullard

clearly served as an attorney for the Board of Education while conducting her
investigation.
2. HCBOE did not waive any privilege by publicly releasing the Bullard
Report.
As set forth above, at all relevant times Ms. Bullard was retained legal counsel for
HCBOE. Due to the fact that Ms. Bullard was retained as legal counsel for purposes of
conducting the investigation, once Ms. Bullard was named as an expert, a privilege log
was provided to counsel as to all attorney/client and work production claimed privileges.
As evidenced by the Order Withdrawing Richard Roe’s Motion to Compel, counsel
agreed to withdraw his Motion to Compel upon counsel providing Attorney Bullard’s
report as well as a privilege log in compliance with the previously entered Protective
Order. See Exhibit 3. On October 18, 2017 in compliance with the Order and counsel’s
agreement, Plaintiffs were provided with the complete Investigative Report and the
attached Privilege Log. See Exhibit 4. Currently, the only issue before the Court is the
asserted privilege regarding the communications between Attorney Scott Bennett and
Attorney Courtney Bullard as well as between Ms. Bullard and her client the HCBOE.
The Court should be aware that both attorney Scott Bennett and Chuck Purcell both
attempted to discuss the issue of the privilege log with counsel without Court
intervention but opposing counsel insisted on the Motion to Compel. See Exhibit 5.
As evidenced below, the Release of the Bullard Report does not serve as an
automatic waiver of the attorney client privilege or the attorney work product. The Sixth
Circuit set forth the elements of the attorney client privilege in United States v. Goldfarb,
328 F. 2d 280, (6th Cir. 1985). They are as follows:
(1) Where legal advice of any kind is sought (2) from a

professional legal adviser in his capacity as such, (3)
the communications relating to that purpose, (4) made
in confidence (5) by the client , (6) are at his instance
permanently protected (7) from disclosure by himself or
by the legal adviser, (8) except the protection be
waived.
See also Garner v. Wolfinbarger, 430 F.2d 1093 (5th Cir. 1970); and UpJohn Co. v.
United States, 449 U.S. 383, 101 S. Ct.677, 66 L.Ed. 2d 584 (1981). “The attorney-
client privilege is the oldest of the privileges for confidential communications known to
the common law. Its purpose is to encourage full and frank communication between
attorneys and their clients and thereby promote broader public interests in the
observance of law and administration of justice. Id. at 389,101 S.Ct, at 682.

In their motion the Plaintiffs rely upon the case of In Re Columbia/HCA
Healthcare, 293 F.3d 289 (6th Cir. 2002), to argue that the HCBOE is practicing
selective waiver of certain communications to which it is asserting attorney-client
privilege. In contrast to Plaintiffs’ assertions regarding In Re Columbia, the Department
of Justice began investigating the Defendant for possible Medicare and Medicaid fraud.
293 F. 3d at 291. In response or anticipation of the investigation the Defendant
conducted internal audits. Id. When the DOJ attempted to obtain the audits, the
Defendant initially asserted the attorney-client privilege and attorney work product
doctrine. 293 F.3d at 292. However, due to a change of corporate control, the
Defendant began to engage in negotiations in settlement of the fraud investigation. Id.
As part of the settlement negotiations, the Defendant agreed to produce some of the
audits and related documents to the Government. Id. In return the Government agreed
to confidentiality provisions would govern its obtaining of the documents. Id. The
Defendant later entered into a settlement with Government as to the fraud investigation.
Id.
Subsequently, several private insurance companies and individuals filed

numerous lawsuits around the country alleging that the Defendant had overbilled them
for various services. Id. Once the lawsuits were combined the Private Payors sought
an order from the district court compelling the Defendant to produce the audits as they
contained relevant information as to the Defendant’s overbilling practices. 293 F.3d at
293. As it initially done with the DOJ, the Defendant asserted attorney-client privilege
and attorney work product doctrine in refusing to produce the audits. Id. The Private
Payors argued that due to the fact that the Defendant had disclosed the audits to the
Government it had waived the protections of the privileges being asserted by the
Defendant. Id.
As evidenced above, there is a distinct primary difference in the underlying facts

of the In Re Columbia/HCA Healthcare case and the facts now before this Honorable
Court. As stated by the 6th Circuit in the HCA Healthcare case, it relied upon the fact
that the Defendant had previously disclosed the requested information to the
Government. Further, in each case the 6th Circuit discussed in the analysis portion of
its decision there had always been a previous disclosure of the information being
sought. Selective waiver is disclosing privileged communication to one party but not
disclosing that same information to another party. That is not the facts now before this
Honorable Court. In the present case, the Plaintiffs are seeking information and
communications between the HCBOE and its attorneys or between the HCBOE’s
attorneys. That information has never been disclosed to anyone, and therefore, still
retains the privilege.
Further, the Plaintiffs’ reliance on Doe v. Baylor University is misplaced as the

Plaintiffs pointed out that the investigation report released by Baylor specifically
4

contained confidential information. The same cannot be shown in this case. It is clear
from review of Ms. Bullard’s report that she did not disclose any confidential information
submitted to her by the HCBOE. As evidenced by Ms. Bullard’s report, the vast majority
of the facts are based upon Ms. Bullard’s interviews with students and from the
Hamilton County Sheriff’s Office investigation. Nowhere in her report does Ms. Bullard
summarize conversations with any HCBOE personnel with any detail to be considered a
waiver of the privilege. Unlike in Baylor there has not been any disclosure of any
communications from the client. In Baylor disclosures were made in a filing in different
litigation regarding quoted text message exchanges and paraphrased conversations
regarding criminal acts by members of the football team that were reported to athletic
staff. Baylor at pg. 8. The filing explained that all the facts and evidenced discussed
were revealed by the investigation done by counsel. Id. Further, the attorneys had
disclosed details of the investigation to former Baylor regents. Id. In Baylor not only did
the disclosed report specifically contain confidential information, but confidential
information was disclosed on two separate occasions to other parties. It is clear in
reviewing Baylor that there was an intentional repeated disclosure of detailed privileged
information. That is not the case here as there was no intent on behalf of the HCBOE to
disclose privileged communication as Ms. Bullard’s report certainly does not outline any
such communication. Furthermore, there has been no disclosure of the protected
communication that the plaintiffs now wish to obtain to any third party. As there has
been no disclosure of protected communication in any form, the privilege has not been
waived. Finally, HDBOE has continued to protect is attorney client privilege and work
product by providing its privilege log to ensure the protection of the communications and
documents detailed therein.
Instead, the HCBOE would point the Court to Banneker Ventures. Banneker
Ventures stands for the fact that documents identified in the HCBOE’s privilege log
maintain their privilege. This privilege remains even though certain documents which
were privileged were disclosed to the Plaintiffs’ pursuant to the agreement memorialized
in Exhibit 3. As set forth in Banneker Ventures, LLC v. Graham, 2017U.S. Dist. LEXIS
74155 (D.D.C. May 16, 2017), the Court held that while the release of the internal
investigation to the public waived the attorney client privilege and work production
doctrines, this waiver was only as to underlying documentation or evidence that was
relied upon in generating the final report. See Exhibit 6. The Court determined that any
evidence not relied upon in the report maintained the attorney client privilege and work
product this was not discoverable by the Plaintiff. Plaintiffs have attempted to claim that
the HCBOE waived its privilege by naming Ms. Bullard as an Expert. First, as set forth
in the Order attached as Exhibit 3. Counsel agreed to production of her Report of
External Investigation as well as those documents identified in Addendums A and B.
Further, counsel agreed to provide a Privilege Log as to those documents that it claimed
attorney client privilege. Banneker Ventures, stand for the premise, that while privilege

may be waived on portions of Investigations conducted by Attorney, privilege remains
intact as to those communications such as those between attorneys and their clients
that are not part of the final report.
Based upon the foregoing, Plaintiffs’’ Motion to Compel should be denied.
Respectfully submitted,
PURCELL, SELLERS & CRAIG, INC.
By: s/Jennifer C. Craig_______________

Charles M. Purcell (012461)
Jennifer C. Craig (020036)
Christopher C. Hayden (028220)
Attorneys for Defendant
P.O. Box 10547
Jackson, Tennessee 38308
(731) 300-0737
Chuck@psclegal.com
jennifer@psclegal.com
Chris@psclegal.com
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document
was forwarded by electronic means via the Court’s electronic filing system.
s/Jennifer C. Craig
Date: December 29, 2017
PERSONS SERVED:
Monica Beck
The Fierberg National Law Group, PLLC
161 E. Front Street, Suite 200
Traverse City, MI 49684
Edmund J. Schmidt, III

Law Office of Eddie Schmidt
2323 21st Avenue South, Suite 502
Nashville, TN 37212

Arthur F. Knight, III
Taylor & Knight, G.P.
800 South Gay Street, Suite 600
Knoxville, TN 37929
Justin S. Gilbert
Gilbert Russell McWherter Scott Bobbitt PLC
100 W. Martin Luther King Blvd., Suite 504
Chattanooga, TN 37402
Eric J. Oliver
Lewis & Oliver
100 W. Martin Luther King Blvd., Suite 501
Jordan K. Crews
Brian A. Pierce
Office of Attorney General
General Civil Division
P.O. Box 20207
Nashville, TN 37202
Curtis L. Bowe, III

Bowe & Associates, PLLC
707 Georgia Avenue, Suite 301
Jaclyn L. McAndrew
Heather Ross
Office of Attorney General and Reporter
P.O. Box 20207
Nashville, TN 37202
Thomas William Caldwell

W. Carl Spining
Ortale, Kelley, Herbert & Crawford
P.O. Box 198985
Nashville, TN 37219
Rheubin M. Taylor
Office of the County Attorney
Room 204, County Courthouse
Benjamin M. Rose
Joshua D. Arters

Law Office of Ben M. Rose, PLLC
P.O. Box 1108
Brentwood, TN 37024

Case 1:16-cv-00373-TRM-CHS Document 136-1 Filed 12/29/17 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:
1065
1066
1067
1068
1069
1070
1071
1072
1073
1074
1075
1076
1077
1078
1079
1080
1081
1082
1083
1084
1085
1086
1087
1088
1089
1090
Addendum A
1. Student A and parent(s)

2. Student B and parent(s)
3. Student C and parent(s)
4. Student D and parent(s)
5. Student E
6. Student F and parent(s)
7. Student G and parent(s)
8. Student H
9. Student I
10. Student J
11. Student K and parent(s)
12. Student L
13. Student M
14. Student N
15. Student O and parent(s)
16. Student P and parent
17. Student Q
18. Student R
19. Student S
20. Matthew Henson
21. Ken Buchanan
22. Jensen Morgan
23. Rocky Chavis
24. Jesse Nayadley
25. Jim Jarvis
26. Sylvia Hutsell
27. Chris Brown
28. Stephanie Allen
29. Wendell Weathers
30. Lee McDade
31. Wayne Rich
32. Doug Greene
33. Donald Mullins
34. James (J.D.) Dunbar
35. Steve Holmes
36. Mac Bryan
37. Marsha Drake
38. Grey Briggs
39. Officer Nathan Sampley
40. Karen Glenn

1091
ADDENDUM B
1. HCDE Policies & Procedures

2. HCDE Revised Board Policy 6.304
3. HCDE Training on Abuse Reporting Procedures 4.14.16
4. 2015-2016 HCDE School Calendar
5. HCDE High School Administrative Policy & Procedure Manuals
6. HCDE Volunteer Form
7. 2015-2016 HCDE Hardship Report
8. HCDE Bullying Policies
9. 2015-2016 HCDE Bullying Compliance Report for OCR
10. HCDE Form Elementary, Middle and High School Climate Surveys
11. HCDE Non-Faculty Volunteer Coach Procedures for Setup
12. HCDE Secondary School Counselor Manual
13. HCDE Form Request for Early Approval for Field Experience
14. HCDE Consent for Athletic Participation and Medical Care
15. HCDE Disciplinary Referral Form
16. HCDE Parent Complaint Form
17. TN Department of Education Civil Rights and Bullying Compliance FAQs
18. Tennessee Department of Education Sample Bullying and Harassment Policy
19. stopbullying.gov website
20. Personnel Records of Avery Rollins, Jesse Nayadley and Andre Montgomery
21. Transcript from the Preliminary Hearing for Karl Williams, Andre Montgomery and
Allard Nayadley in the Juvenile Court of Hamilton County
22. Timeline of events from Steve Holmes
23. Bullying and Prevention Training for HCDE Assistant Principals Powerpoint
9.2014
24. 2015 Dear Colleague Training Activity for Assistant Principals 9.9.14
25. Bullying Is Not Tolerated (B.I.N.T.) Investigation Form
26. OHS Teacher Contact List
27. OHS Web Page
28. OHS Map
29. OHS Hardship Transfers
30. 2015-2016 OHS Boys’ Basketball Roster
31. 2015-2016 OHS Boys’ Basketball Schedule
32. Smoky Mountain Classic Basketball Schedule 2015
33. 2016 Chattanooga Elite Roster
34. 2015-2016 OHS Football Roster
35. 2015-2016 OHS Football Schedule
36. OHS Student Handbook 2015-2016
37. OHS Faculty Handbook 2015-2016
38. OHS Coaching Handbook 2015
39. OHS Student Handbook 2014-2015
40. OHS Code of Acceptable Behavior and Discipline
41. OHS Registration Packet

1092
42. OHS i-SAFE Curriculum Materials OHS Participation Request 12.7.15
43. General Demographics of Specific OHS Students
44. Fall 2015 Class Schedules of Victims and Assailants
45. Meeting Notes re: Gatlinburg 1.4.16
46. Disciplinary records of assailants
47. Olweus Pamphlet
48. Olweus Bullying and Prevention Program Brochure
49. OHS Olweus/STARS Bullying Prevention Brochure
50. OHS OASIS curriculum materials
51. Email from Gregory Gwen to administrators and staff re: STARS
52. OHS 2013 Tennessee School Climate Survey Past 30-day Personal Alcohol,
Tobacco, and Other Drug Use Prevalence
53. OHS 2013 Parent Survey
54. OHS 2013 Teacher Survey
55. OHS Tennessee S3 Student Survey School Summary 2013-2014
56. OHS Sign-in Sheet for Initial Core Training
57. OHS Olweus Core Team Powerpoint Presentation 11.11.14
58. OHS Expectation Poster – Rules on Bullying
59. OHS Thanks for Giving a Hoot Bullying Poster
60. OHS On the Spot Bullying Intervention Cards
61. OHS Olweus Staff Training Powerpoint Presentation 8.7.15
62. OHS Sign-in Staff Training 8.7.15
63. STARS website
64. HCSO and DCS Interviews (12) of Nayadley, Jarvis, Montgomery, victims and
witnesses
65. Newspaper Articles from 12/30/15 – 07/01/16

1093
1094
1095
T16-0149
Privilege Log
Courtney Bullard
Document Author Recipient Description Privilege Asserted

Date
4/25/16 Scacey Voelp D. Scott Bennett, OHS girls’ soccer team seeks Attorney-client
Hamilton County BOE rights to practice field in communications between
accordance with Title IX. Mr. Bennett and the school
board.
10/4/17 Dr. Steve Highlander D. Scott Bennett Preliminary report regarding Attorney-client privilege.
OHS.
6/28/16 Dr. Steve Highlander Dr. Jonathan Welch Preliminary Bullard report. Attorney-client privilege.
David Testerman
Mosley Karitsa
George Ricks
Martin Greg
Thurmond Rhonda
Joe Galloway
Donna Horn
Dr. Kirk
9/22/17 D. Scott Bennett Courtney Bullard E-mail regarding attorney- Attorney-client privilege
Charles Purcell client privilege issues.
9/23/17 D. Scott Bennett Courtney Bullard Discussion of attorney-client Attorney-client privilege.
Charles Purcell privilege with issues
regarding Bullard report.
1/5/17 Courtney Bullard Hamilton County Dept of Statement for Professional Attorney-client privilege
Education – Investigation Services and attorney-work product
doctrine.
2/17/16 Courtney Bullard D. Scott Bennett Proposal of external audit for Attorney-client privilege
HCDE and attorney-work product
doctrine.
3/17/16 D. Scott Bennett Courtney Bullard Discussions with school Attorney-client privilege
board attorney. and attorney-work product
doctrine.
3/17/16 D. Scott Bennett Courtney Bullard Discussion of report between Attorney-client privilege
Bullard and school board and attorney-work product
1096
attorney. doctrine.
board attorney regarding and attorney-work product
investigation. doctrine.
board attorney regarding and attorney-work product
upcoming investigation doctrine.
3/18/16 D. Scott Bennett Courtney Bullard Communication with school Attorney-client privilege
doctrine.
doctrine.
3/18/16 Courtney Bullard D. Scott Bennett Communication with school Attorney-client privilege
doctrine.
doctrine.
doctrine.
doctrine.
doctrine.
3/21/16 Courtney Bullard D. Scott Bennett HCDE engagement letter. Attorney-client privilege
and attorney-work product
doctrine.
doctrine.
doctrine.
1097
board attorney and attorney-work product
doctrine.
doctrine.
doctrine.
doctrine.
doctrine.
doctrine.
doctrine.
doctrine.
doctrine.
doctrine.
doctrine.
doctrine.
doctrine.
1098
doctrine.
doctrine.
doctrine.
doctrine.
doctrine.
doctrine.
doctrine.
doctrine.
doctrine.
doctrine.
doctrine.
doctrine.
1099
doctrine.
doctrine.
doctrine.
doctrine.
doctrine.
doctrine.
doctrine.
4/6/16 Courtney Bullard Hamilton Co. Dept. of Communication with school Attorney-client privilege
Education & D. Scott board attorney. and attorney-work product
Bennett doctrine.
doctrine.
doctrine.
doctrine.
doctrine.
doctrine.
1100
doctrine.
doctrine.
doctrine.
doctrine.
doctrine.
doctrine.
doctrine.
5/5/16 Courtney Bullard Hamilton Co. Dept. of Statement for Professional Attorney-client privilege
Education, c/o D. Scott Services. and attorney-work product
Bennett doctrine.
doctrine.
Stacy Stewart board attorney. and attorney-work product
doctrine.
doctrine.
doctrine.
doctrine.
1101
doctrine.
doctrine.
doctrine.
Beth Benson board attorney. and attorney-work product
doctrine.
doctrine.
doctrine.
doctrine.
5/17/16 Courtney Bullard D. Scott Bennett Statement for Professional Attorney-client privilege
Services. and attorney-work product
doctrine.
doctrine.
doctrine.
5/19/16 Courtney Bullard D. Scott Bennett Statement for Professional Attorney-client privilege
Services and attorney-work product
doctrine.
doctrine.
1102
doctrine.
5/27/16 Courtney Bullard Stacy Stewart Communication with school Attorney-client privilege
doctrine.
doctrine.
Beth Benson doctrine.
5/27/16 D. Scott Bennett Stacy Stewart Communication with school Attorney-client privilege
Courtney Bullard board attorney. and attorney-work product
5/27/16 Stacy Stewart Courtney Bullard Communication with school Attorney-client privilege
D. Scott Bennett board attorney. and attorney-work product
doctrine.
6/1/16 Stacy Stewart Courtney Bullard Communication with school Attorney-client privilege
D. Scott Bennett board attorney. and attorney-work product
Mary Decamp doctrine.
doctrine.
6/9/16 Courtney Bullard D. Scott Bennett Professional Services Attorney-client privilege
Statement. and attorney-work product
doctrine.
doctrine.
doctrine.
doctrine.
6/14/16 Courtney Bullard Hamilton Co. Dept. of Professional Services Attorney-client privilege
1103
Education, c/o D. Scott Statement. and attorney-work product
Bennett doctrine.
doctrine.
doctrine.
doctrine.
doctrine.
doctrine.
doctrine.
doctrine.
doctrine.
6/28/16 Dr. Steve Highlander D. Scott Bennett; Welch, Bullard’s preliminary report. Attorney-client
Dr. Jonathan; Testerman communications between
David; Mosley Karitsa; school board counsel and
Ricks George; Martin Dr. board members. Attorney-
Greg; Thurman Rhonda; client privilege and
Galloway Joe; Horn attorney-work product
Donna; Kelley Dr. Kirk doctrine.
Education c/o D. Scott Statement. and attorney-work product
Bennett doctrine.
1104
doctrine.
doctrine.
doctrine.
doctrine.
doctrine.
doctrine.
doctrine.
doctrine.
doctrine.
doctrine.
doctrine.
doctrine.
Bennett doctrine.
1105
doctrine.
Bennett doctrine.
Bennett doctrine.
doctrine.
doctrine.
doctrine.
Courtney Bullard Draft of investigative report
outline.
Courtney Bullard Draft of investigative report
outline.
Courtney Bullard Draft of Preliminary findings
and recommendations of the
external investigation.

1106
1107
1108
1109
1110
1111
1112
1113
1114
1115
1116
1117
1118
1119
1120

Fed Suit HCDE Response To Motion To Compel Bullard

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Fed Suit HCDE Response To Motion To Compel Bullard

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

T16-0149

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DEFENDANT, HAMILTON COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION’S, RESPONSE TO

The Defendant, Hamilton County Board of Education, hereafter referred to as

Case 1:16-cv-00373-TRM-CHS Document 136 Filed 12/29/17 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: 1057

Case 1:16-cv-00373-TRM-CHS Document 136 Filed 12/29/17 Page 2 of 8 PageID #: 1058

(1) Where legal advice of any kind is sought (2) from a

Case 1:16-cv-00373-TRM-CHS Document 136 Filed 12/29/17 Page 3 of 8 PageID #: 1059

Subsequently, several private insurance companies and individuals filed

As evidenced above, there is a distinct primary difference in the underlying facts

Further, the Plaintiffs’ reliance on Doe v. Baylor University is misplaced as the

Case 1:16-cv-00373-TRM-CHS Document 136 Filed 12/29/17 Page 4 of 8 PageID #: 1060

Case 1:16-cv-00373-TRM-CHS Document 136 Filed 12/29/17 Page 5 of 8 PageID #: 1061

Based upon the foregoing, Plaintiffs’’ Motion to Compel should be denied.

PURCELL, SELLERS & CRAIG, INC.

By: s/Jennifer C. Craig_______________

Date: December 29, 2017

Edmund J. Schmidt, III

Case 1:16-cv-00373-TRM-CHS Document 136 Filed 12/29/17 Page 6 of 8 PageID #: 1062

Curtis L. Bowe, III

Thomas William Caldwell

Case 1:16-cv-00373-TRM-CHS Document 136 Filed 12/29/17 Page 7 of 8 PageID #: 1063

Case 1:16-cv-00373-TRM-CHS Document 136 Filed 12/29/17 Page 8 of 8 PageID #: 1064

1. Student A and parent(s)

Case 1:16-cv-00373-TRM-CHS Document 136-2 Filed 12/29/17 Page 25 of 27 PageID #:

1. HCDE Policies & Procedures

Case 1:16-cv-00373-TRM-CHS Document 136-2 Filed 12/29/17 Page 26 of 27 PageID #:

Case 1:16-cv-00373-TRM-CHS Document 136-2 Filed 12/29/17 Page 27 of 27 PageID #:

Document Author Recipient Description Privilege Asserted

Case 1:16-cv-00373-TRM-CHS Document 136-4 Filed 12/29/17 Page 11 of 11 PageID #:

You might also like