Prasad v. George Washington University
Civil Action No. 2015-1779
| D.D.C. | Oct 12, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Ricca Prasad, GWU student 2010–2015, alleges Title IX violations and related claims stemming from harassment by another student.
- GWU OSRR and related offices issued No Contact Orders; harassment continued despite disciplinary actions and orders.
- Disciplinary actions against the harasser occurred in May 2013, but Plaintiff alleges ongoing harassment and improper university responses.
- Plaintiff challenges discovery conduct: defendant's ESI searches, scope of redactions, and a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notice.
- The court resolves several discovery disputes, holding searches reasonable overall, narrowing deposition topics, and addressing redactions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Defendant's ESI searches for Interrogatory 14 and Requests 7 and 15 were reasonable | Prasad argues broader search terms were needed to uncover all complaints about Slifka. | GWU contends the searches were reasonable and proportionate given costs and likely benefits. | Searches deemed reasonable; no further searches compelled. |
| Whether Request for Production 27 is overbroad and irrelevant | Requests would illuminate a broader Title IX issue and institutional practices. | Request is overbroad in time and scope and not tied to Plaintiff's claims; privacy/FERPA concerns. | Request 27 denied; overbroad and not probative of Title IX claim. |
| Whether redactions, including AA0001930-34, are privileged | Some redactions may be protected by privilege. | Redacted material constitutes attorney-client communications or privilege. | AA0001930-34 redaction lacks privilege; disclose unredacted copy. |
| Whether Plaintiff's Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notice is overbroad | Notice seeks broad institutional testimony on numerous topics and years. | Topics are overbroad and duplicative of discovered information; burdensome to prepare. | Notice narrowed; parties must agree on meaningful topics; current notice denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Food Lion, Inc. v. United Food & Commercial Workers Int'l Union, 103 F.3d 1007 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (discovery relevance and proportionality, broadly construed relevance)
- Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340 (U.S. 1978) (relevance and discovery standard framework)
- Moore v. Napolitano, 723 F. Supp. 2d 167 (D.D.C. 2010) (reasonableness of production obligations; proportionality in discovery)
- Reinsdorf v. Skechers U.S.A., Inc., 296 F.R.D. 604 (C.D. Cal. 2013) (reasonable search scope; discovery overbreadth considerations)
- Banks v. Office of Senate Sergeant-at-Arms, 222 F.R.D. 7 (D.D.C. 2004) (courts may reject overbroad 30(b)(6) notices)
- Tri-State Hosp. Supply Corp. v. United States, 226 F.R.D. 118 (D.D.C. 2005) (30(b)(6) topics must be meaningful and not duplicative)
- McKesson Corp. v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 185 F.R.D. 70 (D.D.C. 1999) (Rule 30(b)(6) testimony should not be used as broad catch-all)