A court may narrow requests for production that are overly broad and order the defendants to comply. Allegedly, the minor plaintiff suffered sexual abuse when he was in elementary school and retaliation when he was in middle school. On Oct. 14, 2011, the minor plaintiff and his parents sued the municipality, the board of education and the commissioner of the Department of Children and Families. Previously, the court granted the commissioner's motion to dismiss. The plaintiffs served interrogatories and requests for production and then moved to compel responses. Apparently, the defendants answered "N/A" in response to a request for reports of insurance investigators, and the District Court ordered the defendants to indicate formally whether there were any insurance reports. The court found that the plaintiffs' requests were overly broad, because the plaintiffs requested copies of documents and communications between the board of education defendants and the Department of Children and Families relating to the minor plaintiff and other students between Jan. 1, 2002 and the present. The court ordered the board of education defendants to produce only the documents that are dated between Jan. 1, 2008 and Oct. 14, 2011 and that relate to the minor plaintiff. The court granted the plaintiffs' request to compel the defendants to itemize the training that particular defendants received about reporting and investigating allegations of student abuse, provided that the information is available. The defendants redacted many of the documents that were produced, and the court ordered the defendants to provide unredacted copies, for the court to review in camera. Allegedly, the individual defendants failed to provide answers that were signed under oath, and the court ordered that individual defendants comply with this requirement.

VIEW FULL CASE