Mills v. Cabell County Board of Education, 3:22-cv-00592

Background

Plaintiffs Teresa and Clinton Mills are parents/guardians of C.M., a non‑verbal 15‑year‑old with Phelan‑McDermid Syndrome who attended Huntington High School from August 22, 2022 to October 19, 2022.
Plaintiffs allege videos and other evidence show school staff (individual defendants) grabbed, shoved, restrained, left C.M. in soiled clothing, deprived him of his communication device/food/drink, and removed him from class without consent.
Plaintiffs sent preservation and litigation‑hold requests and requested access to school surveillance videos; CCBOE produced some footage but disputed scope and privacy burdens.
Plaintiffs filed suit (Dec. 19, 2022) asserting numerous claims, including negligence, negligent hiring/ supervision, ADA/Rehab Act/West Virginia Human Rights Act violations, §1983, battery, false imprisonment, spoliation, and emotional distress.
The parties filed cross motions to compel discovery: CCBOE sought fuller responses from Plaintiffs (interrogatories and document requests); Plaintiffs moved to compel additional school video footage and related materials from CCBOE.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Interrogatory No. 3 (factual basis for negligent hiring/retention)	Plaintiffs: contention based on video observations; will supplement later	CCBOE: seeks specific facts now (dates, who, what)	Court: GRANTS — Plaintiffs must supplement with presently available specifics within 14 days
Interrogatory No. 8 (details re abuse/neglect of classmates)	Plaintiffs: cannot fully answer until they have and can review CCBOE videos; provided some dates and witness IDs	CCBOE: requests date/time/classroom/perpetrator and evidence in Plaintiffs’ possession now	Court: GRANTS — Plaintiffs must provide presently known specifics and state what evidence they possess (or none) within 14 days
Interrogatory No. 24 (nature/extent/providers re: C.M.’s injuries)	Plaintiffs: echoed complaint allegations, referenced a forensic exam but gave no detail	CCBOE: requests nature/evidence/extent/duration and providers for each injury	Court: GRANTS — Plaintiffs must supplement with available medical/forensic/injury information within 14 days
RFP No. 14 (forensic data from C.M.’s out‑of‑school communication device)	Plaintiffs: device is C.M.’s primary communication tool and controlled/configured by therapy provider; open to forensic exam but concerned about depriving C.M. of device	CCBOE: seeks forensic access to device	Court: GRANTS IN PART — Parties must meet and confer within 14 days to set a mutually acceptable protocol for forensic examination
RFP No. 25 (photos/videos for past five years)	Plaintiffs: already produced ~6 months of video; objected to broader scope	CCBOE: seeks one year of footage for baseline	Court: GRANTS IN PART — Plaintiffs must produce videos dating back one year (beginning Aug 22, 2021) within 14 days
Plaintiffs’ Requests for school videos (RFP Nos. 2 & 3: classroom footage and footage showing C.M.’s whereabouts Aug 22–Oct 19, 2022)	Plaintiffs: seek all classroom footage and footage showing C.M.’s movements while he attended school	CCBOE: objects as irrelevant/overbroad, burdensome under FERPA, would require blurring/parent notice, and estimates high cost	Court: GRANTS — CCBOE must supplement production for specified school hours/dates (classroom footage and footage showing C.M.’s whereabouts) within 14 days; may blur or rely on Protective Order or parent consent as needed

Key Cases Cited

Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495 (1947) (recognizing work‑product doctrine and protection for documents prepared in anticipation of litigation)
Capacchione v. Charlotte–Mecklenburg Bd. of Educ., 182 F.R.D. 486 (W.D.N.C. 1998) (contention interrogatories generally more appropriate after substantial discovery)
Jayne H. Lee, Inc. v. Flagstaff Indus. Corp., 173 F.R.D. 651 (D. Md. 1997) (contention interrogatories can pin down legal theories and primary supporting facts)