Doe v. District of Columbia
248 F. Supp. 3d 186
| D.D.C. | 2017Background
- Plaintiffs (Robert and Carla Doe) sued the District of Columbia and CFSA employees after CFSA temporarily removed two children without a court order; the D.C. Circuit remanded Fourth and Fifth Amendment municipal-liability claims to determine whether District policy/custom permitted warrantless removals absent a bona fide emergency.
- On remand, Plaintiffs were allowed limited discovery and served ten interrogatories; the dispute centers on Interrogatory No. 9, which sought material facts for CFSA removals without pre-removal court orders (Jan 2003–Oct 2004, narrowed from a larger timeframe).
- The District initially objected as overly broad and unduly burdensome and produced a 147-page FACES data chart that lacked narrative details about exigent circumstances; parties conferred repeatedly before Magistrate Judge Kay and engaged in in-camera review.
- The District offered as an alternative to narrative answers to produce redacted records subject to a protective order and a rolling production; Plaintiffs conditionally accepted if certain terms (timeframe, rolling production, limited redactions, protective order language) were met.
- The Court approved a Protective Order (Nov 17, 2016). The District commenced a rolling production of redacted petitions and complaints (Jan 2003–Oct 2004); production proceeded slowly from multiple sources but was ongoing, with hundreds of pages already produced.
- Because the District’s rolling, redacted production under the Protective Order addressed the discovery dispute, the Court denied Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel without prejudice and explained Plaintiffs may renew if deficiencies persist after production completes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequacy of response to Interrogatory No. 9 (facts re: warrantless removals) | Interrogatory is relevant, narrowed to Jan 2003–Oct 2004, not unduly burdensome; Plaintiffs offered to review produced documents and accept a protective order; asked court to compel full answer or deem admissions | Interrogatory was overly broad and unduly burdensome; producing narrative answers unnecessary—Rule 33(d) permits production of records; privacy concerns justify redactions; offered rolling production of redacted records | Denied without prejudice: rolling production under approved Protective Order effectively resolved the dispute; Plaintiffs may renew if production proves insufficient |
Key Cases Cited
- Doe v. District of Columbia, 796 F.3d 96 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (remanded municipal-liability issue regarding warrantless removals)
- Doe v. District of Columbia, 958 F. Supp. 2d 178 (D.D.C. 2013) (prior district-court opinion describing factual/ procedural history)
- Food Lion, Inc. v. United Food & Commercial Workers Int’l Union, 103 F.3d 1007 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (trial courts have broad discretion in discovery matters)
- Haughton v. District of Columbia, 161 F. Supp. 3d 100 (D.D.C. 2014) (discussing Rule 33(d) records production alternative)
- Guantanamera Cigar Co. v. Corporation Habanos, S.A., 263 F.R.D. 1 (D.D.C. 2009) (interrogatory answers must be true, explicit, responsive, complete, and candid)
- Equal Rights Ctr. v. Post Props., Inc., 246 F.R.D. 29 (D.D.C. 2007) (same standard for interrogatory answers)