M.M. v. Tacoma School District No 10
3:21-cv-05865
| W.D. Wash. | May 4, 2023Background
- M.M. is the legal guardian of minor O.M. and is in the process of adopting O.M.; M.M. sued the school district alleging sexual abuse of O.M. while in kindergarten.
- Defendants subpoenaed O.M.’s juvenile records from the Washington State Department of Children, Youth, and Families (DCYF) after M.M. indicated she did not possess the file.
- DCYF demanded executed authorizations, photo identification, and proof of legal parentage/guardianship; DCYF also raised the possibility that O.M.’s prior adoptive parents retained rights and therefore opposed release absent a court order.
- Defendants provided a DCYF authorization signed by M.M., M.M.’s photo ID, and a temporary guardianship order, plus discovery materials suggesting prior adoptive parents “surrendered” rights, but DCYF did not produce the file or formally comply.
- The Court denied Defendants’ motion to compel DCYF without prejudice because M.M. is not yet an adoptive "parent" under Wash. Rev. Code § 13.50.100(7) and therefore lacks the statutory right to obtain the juvenile records; the Court also ordered supplemental briefing on potential rights of the prior adoptive parents and any conflict bearing on appointment of a guardian ad litem.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (M.M.) | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DCYF must produce O.M.’s juvenile records to Defendants under the subpoena and RCW 13.50.100 | M.M. produced signed authorizations, photo ID, and a guardianship order and contends prior adoptive parents surrendered rights, allowing release. | Defendants assert entitlement to records under RCW 13.50.100(7) and by relying on M.M.’s authorization and guardianship documents. | Denied without prejudice: M.M. is not a statutory "parent" under § 13.50.100(7), so that provision does not authorize release. Defendants may renew on another legal basis. |
| Whether DCYF waived objections by failing to timely serve a written objection to the Rule 45 subpoena | M.M. notes DCYF did not timely object. | Defendants relied on DCYF’s confidentiality obligations and statutory limits on disclosure. | Court found DCYF’s written objection was untimely (waiver rule), but retained an independent duty to protect DCYF from unduly burdensome or improper discovery. |
| Whether a guardian ad litem or other protection is required given adoption proceedings and potential competing interests | M.M. contends she is an appropriate representative under Rule 17(c) as guardian. | Defendants point to ongoing, contested adoption proceedings and uncertain termination of prior adoptive parents’ rights, raising potential conflicts and adequacy concerns. | Court ordered supplemental briefing on whether prior adoptive parents retain rights, whether M.M.’s representation poses a conflict, and whether appointment of a guardian ad litem or notice to prior adoptive parents is appropriate. |
| Whether the requested protective order should issue | N/A (plaintiff must confer on protective order terms if motion renewed). | Defendants sought a protective order in connection with subpoena compliance. | Denied as moot because motion to compel was denied without prejudice; any renewed motion must include good-faith conferral and proposed protective order. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gonzalez v. Google, Inc., 234 F.R.D. 674 (N.D. Cal. 2006) (courts apply general discovery limitations to third-party subpoenas)
- Mattel Inc. v. Walking Mountain Prods., 353 F.3d 792 (9th Cir. 2003) (district court’s discovery decisions are discretionary)
- Goodman v. United States, 369 F.2d 166 (9th Cir. 1966) (burden of showing subpoena is unduly burdensome rests with resisting party)
- Robidoux v. Rosengren, 638 F.3d 1177 (9th Cir. 2011) (district courts have special duty under Rule 17(c) to safeguard minors’ interests)
- Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330 (U.S. 2016) (standing is required for federal subject-matter jurisdiction)
- United States v. 30.64 Acres of Land, 795 F.2d 796 (9th Cir. 1986) (district courts’ obligation to ensure minors are adequately protected in litigation)
- In re Chicago, Rock Island & Pac. R.R. Co., 788 F.2d 1280 (7th Cir. 1986) (court may appoint guardian ad litem if representative may not adequately protect minor)
- In re Dependency of J.W.H., 57 P.3d 266 (Wash. 2002) (statutory construction: legislature’s specific language controls access to juvenile records)
- In re Estate of Fleming, 21 P.3d 281 (Wash. 2001) (adoption is a process; rights may be severed prior to final decree)
- In re Guardianship of Ivarsson, 375 P.2d 509 (Wash. 1962) (conflict of interest may require guardian ad litem appointment)
- In re Dunagan, 447 P.2d 87 (Wash. 1968) (in allegations of abuse/unfit home, guardian ad litem may be required to protect child’s interests)