298 F.R.D. 453
D.S.D.2014Background
- Plaintiffs seek expedited discovery of written transcripts from 48-hour Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) hearings in Pennington County from Jan. 1, 2010, to the present to support a motion for preliminary injunction challenging county practices in those hearings.
- Plaintiffs asked defendants to compile a chronological list of all such hearings and to obtain electronic transcripts for every third hearing (plaintiffs offered to pay for transcripts or to obtain them themselves once provided reporter contact info).
- Defendants opposed, arguing no good cause for expedited discovery because injunctive relief is unavailable, the request is overbroad, burdensome, premature, and seeks materials outside Rule 34; they also raised privacy/sealing concerns over juvenile transcripts.
- The court applied the Eighth Circuit district-court practice of the "good cause" standard for expedited discovery and weighed factors like pending injunctive relief, breadth, purpose, burden, and timing.
- The court found plaintiffs' request narrowly tailored (transcripts identified by ICWA affidavit or notation in temporary custody orders), necessary to show a pattern/practice for injunctive relief, not overly burdensome, and that privacy interests yield to federal civil-rights discovery subject to protective measures.
- The court granted expedited discovery: defendants must produce a list of 48-hour ICWA hearings (case name/number, judge, date, court reporter contact); plaintiffs will obtain transcripts for every third case at their expense; parties must submit a joint (or proposed) protective order by specified dates.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether expedited discovery is warranted pre-Rule 26(f) | Plaintiffs need transcripts now to prepare and defend a preliminary injunction showing ongoing policies/practices | No good cause: injunctive relief unavailable under §1983 against judicial officers; premature before answers | Court: Good cause exists; pending preliminary-injunction purpose weighs in favor of expedited discovery |
| Scope/breadth of requested discovery | Requests limited to hearings since 1/1/2010 and only every third transcript; plaintiffs offered to pay/obtain transcripts | Overbroad/unclear whether ICWA-applicable hearings only; requires extensive file review | Court: Request is narrowly tailored; ICWA application can be determined by presence of an ICWA affidavit or notation in orders |
| Burden on defendants to produce list/transcripts | Plaintiffs will obtain transcripts once provided reporter info; minimal burden to identify cases via affidavit/order | Burdensome: manual review of many juvenile files (some off-site) and reporter identification | Court: While time-consuming, not unduly burdensome; defendants can supply list and plaintiffs will procure transcripts |
| Privacy/sealing and Rule scope (possession/control) | Federal civil-rights discovery can overcome state privacy restrictions; plaintiffs seek court-ordered list not transcripts from defendants and propose protective order | Transcripts are sealed; state court authorization may be required; transcripts not in defendants' possession/control and Rule 34 limits apply | Court: Defendants need only provide case list and reporter contacts; federal interest permits discovery subject to protective order; Rule 34 inapplicable to the list request |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Washington, 318 F.3d 845 (8th Cir. 2003) (district courts have broad discretion over discovery)
- Monsanto Co. v. Woods, 250 F.R.D. 411 (E.D. Mo. 2008) (discussing expedited discovery standards)
- Dorrah v. United States, 282 F.R.D. 442 (N.D. Iowa 2012) (use of good-cause standard for expedited discovery)
- Ginest v. Bd. of Cty. Comm’rs of Carbon Cnty., 306 F. Supp. 2d 1158 (D. Wyo. 2004) (state privacy interests yield to federal civil-rights discovery in class/institutional litigation)
- Edudata Corp. v. Scientific Computers, Inc., 599 F. Supp. 1084 (D. Minn. 1984) (expedited discovery appropriate to prepare for preliminary injunction)
- Ellsworth Assocs., Inc. v. United States, 917 F. Supp. 841 (D.D.C. 1996) (expedited discovery appropriate where plaintiff seeks injunctive relief)
- Doe v. Meachum, 126 F.R.D. 444 (D. Conn. 1989) (compelling confidential records in class civil-rights litigation)
- N.O. v. Callahan, 110 F.R.D. 637 (D. Mass. 1986) (allowing access to student medical records for class-pattern claims)
- Lora v. Bd. of Educ. of City of New York, 74 F.R.D. 565 (E.D.N.Y. 1977) (individual/state privacy cannot prevail over federal discovery in pattern-or-practice claims)