Doe YZ v. Shattuck-St. Mary's Sch.

214 F.Supp.3d 763

DOE YZ, Plaintiff,

v.SHATTUCK–ST. MARY'S SCHOOL, Defendant.

Doe XY, Plaintiff,

v.Shattuck–St. Mary's School, Defendant.

Doe AB, Plaintiff,

v.Shattuck–St. Mary's School, Defendant.

Civil No. 15–1151 ADM/SER

Civil No. 15–1154 ADM/SER

Civil No. 15–1155 ADM/SER

United States District Court, D. Minnesota.

Signed October 5, 2016

Jeffrey R. Anderson, Esq., Jeff Anderson & Associates, P.A., Saint Paul, MN, on behalf of Plaintiffs.

Stephen O. Plunkett, Esq., and Steven P. Aggergaard, Esq., Bassford Remele, P.A., Minneapolis, MN, on behalf of Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

ANN D. MONTGOMERY, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

I. INTRODUCTION

On July 18, 2016, the undersigned United States District Judge heard oral argument on Defendant Shattuck–St. Mary's School's ("Shattuck") Motion for Summary Judgment [Docket No. 57]¹ and Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony of Charol Shakeshaft [Docket No. 58] in the three above-captioned cases. Also before the Court is Plaintiffs² Doe YZ, Doe XY, and Doe AB's (collectively, "Plaintiffs") Objection [Docket No. 82] to Magistrate Judge Steven E. Rau's June 13, 2016 Order [Docket No. 69] denying Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend Their Complaints to Add a Claim for Punitive Damages [Docket No. 38].

These cases arise from alleged sexual abuse at Shattuck approximately fifteen years ago. Shattuck is a private boarding and day school located in Faribault, Minnesota. Plaintiffs allege sexual abuse by former Shattuck teacher Lynn Seibel while they were students at the school. They seek to hold Shattuck liable for the abuse under theories of negligence, negligent supervision, and negligent retention.

For the reasons set forth below, Shattuck's Motion for Summary Judgment and its Motion to Exclude Shakeshaft's testimony is denied. Plaintiffs' Objection to Judge Rau's Order is sustained in part and overruled in part.

II. BACKGROUND³

Shattuck is a private boarding and day school for students in grades 6–12. Goffe Aff. [Docket No. 74] Ex. 2 ("Student/Parent Handbook") at 14–15, 36. Most Shattuck students live on campus in residence halls supervised by "dorm parents." Id. at 14–15, 55–56. Dorm parents are Shattuck teachers or coaches who live in the residence halls and serve as on-site parents for the students. Id. at 55–56; Goffe Aff. Ex. 5 ("Hedderick Dep. I") at 70:1–1.

Plaintiffs are three male former Shattuck students. Doe AB attended Shattuck from 1999 to 2001, when he was 17 and 18 years old. Goffe Aff. Ex. 14 ("Doe AB Dep.") at 10:11–14, 91:19–23. Doe XY attended Shattuck from 1998 to 2003, when he was 13 to 18 years old. Goffe Aff. Ex. 15 ("Doe XY Dep. I") at 34:10–12, 51:11–13. Doe YZ attended Shattuck from 2000 to 2004, when he was 14 to 18 years old. Goffe Aff. Ex. 13 ("Doe YZ Dep.") at 113:1–4; Aggergaard Decl. [Docket No. 64] Ex. 14 ("Crim. Compl.") at 17. During their time at Shattuck, each Plaintiff lived for a period of time in Whipple Hall ("Whipple"), where Lynn Seibel ("Seibel") was a dorm parent and, later, a study hall proctor. Doe XY Dep. I at 184:2–4; Doe AB Dep. 200:6–14; Doe YZ Dep. at 114:3–6, 116:6–20, 154:2–11.

A. Lynn Seibel

Seibel started working at Shattuck in 1992 as a drama teacher. Goffe Aff. Exs. 7–8. He had extensive prior experience in theater and had taught acting classes, but he had not previously worked in an educational institution. Id. Ex. 9 ("Seibel Dep.") at 9:14–10:13. Seibel completed an application and interview as part of the application process at Shattuck. Id. at 79:18–20. Seibel could not recall what, if anything, Shattuck asked him about his criminal record, but he testified that "I'm sure I didn't bring it up." Id. at 79:21–81:3. At the time of his application, Seibel had two misdemeanor convictions in California, one of which was for lewd conduct. Goffe Aff. Ex. 10.

Initially Seibel lived off campus, but he soon became a dorm parent and moved with his wife and children into an apartment in Whipple. Seibel Dep. at 11:14–24. As a dorm parent, Seibel served as both a supervisor and mentor to the students residing in Whipple. Id. at 21:15–22, 55:12–23. Seibel was well liked by the students. Goffe Aff. Ex. 3 ("Kieffer Dep.") at 82:10–25; Hedderick Dep. I at 26:22–25. He had a reputation "as somebody [the students could] go to and talk to" about their problems. Seibel Dep. at 21:15–22. Seth Hedderick ("Hedderick"), who served as a dorm parent in Whipple with Seibel, recalled that there was a general sense among the faculty that Seibel "was a bit more permissive in terms of what he allowed in his classes and in the dorm." Id. For example, Seibel would allow students to leave the dorm after curfew through his apartment, which had an exterior door. Id. at 29:1–12. Doe YZ testified, when Seibel was in charge, "you could do whatever you really wanted to if he liked you." Doe YZ Dep. at 155:16–17.

Seibel was also viewed as a celebrity on campus. Hedderick Dep. I at 27:3–9. He sang the national anthem and served as the announcer at Shattuck hockey games. Id. ; Seibel Dep. at 110:11–13. He had roles in two movies that were filmed at Shattuck: "Embrace the Vampire" and "Mighty Ducks 3." Hedderick Dep. I at 27:6–7; Seibel Dep. at 91:4–8, 92:19–25. For "Embrace the Vampire," Seibel served as the location manager and played a professor who gives a lecture on erotic art. Seibel Dep. at 89:19–21, 91:4–16. In its final version, the film was sexually explicit, though Seibel testified that neither he nor Headmaster Greg Kieffer knew that when they approved the project. Id. at 88:15–89:18, 92:5–8.

B. Seibel's Inappropriate Conduct with Students

A few years after he became a dorm parent, Seibel acted inappropriately around the students living in Whipple. He recounted stories of his sexual history. Seibel Dep. at 171:5–9; Doe YZ Dep. at 189:21–190:5; Crim. Compl. at 7. He asked them about their sex lives. Doe YZ Dep. at 162:17–18. And he encouraged activities involving nudity, such as streaking the girls' dorms and naked dance parties. Seibel Dep. at 57:7–11; Crim. Compl. at 9, 11–13.

During the naked dance parties, which occurred in Whipple's basement shower area, students would jump around, slap each other on the buttocks, and stretch their penises. Doe YZ Dep. at 139:17–140:7; Doe AB Dep. at 214:8–13; Aggergaard Decl. Ex. 21 ("Doe XY Dep. II") at 195:5–7. The students played loud music, and on at least one occasion there was a live band. Seibel Dep. at 60:18–19; Doe AB Dep. at 210:23–211:9; Doe XY Dep. I at 187:3–7. Seibel would attend and watch the students during these parties. Seibel Dep. 60:5–7; Doe YZ Dep. at 145:19–22; Doe AB Dep. at 141:20–142:9.

Seibel also frequently came into the upstairs bathrooms "to chat" while students were showering. Doe XY Dep. I at 198:15–200:24; Doe AB Dep. at 222:4–7; Crim. Compl. at 8–9, 12. Doe YZ testified, Seibel would come into the bathroom and "he'd encourage us to gather in there, four, five, six guys at a time. And then he'd come walk around. And on that one, in the group shower on the east, there was no curtain." Doe YZ Dep. at 150:4–10. During some of these shower visits, Seibel advised the students to shave their pubic region and told them how good it looked when they did so. Doe YZ Dep. at 159:5–23; Doe AB Dep. at 223:2–8; Doe XY Dep. I at 202:2–16.

Further inappropriate conduct by Seibel occurred during what was referred to as "AP drama class." Doe AB described how he became involved in this so-called class:

Mr. Seibel told us it was something that had been done for many years prior to us. He had a name for the class. Told us he could make our penises bigger; he could teach us things. And all we had to do was, you know, meet him in a room and not say anything about it.

Doe AB Dep. at 241:10–17. In the room with Seibel, the students watched pornography and masturbated while Seibel walked around the room, fully clothed, explaining how to perform penis enlargement exercises. Id. at 245:2–247:1; Seibel Dep. at 50:5–25; Crim. Compl. at 7–12. He also measured the students' penises with a ruler during these sessions and talked about whose penis was the largest. Doe AB Dep. at 246:8–10; Seibel Dep. at 105:10–19; Crim. Compl. at 7–12.

Seibel concealed his motive of his own sexual gratification from the students. Seibel Dep. at 25:10–20. He believed the students would stop participating in the activities if they realized they were being abused, so he was careful not to show any sexual interest in the students. Id. Instead, he portrayed himself as a "guru" the students could trust and learn from. Id. at 17:17–25. He "groomed" the students to "talk[ ] about their penises, about their sexuality ... so they would feel comfortable being naked in front of [him] and maybe even masturbating." Id. at 100:10–25. And he approached the "AP drama" sessions "very clinically" to make the exercises and measurements appear legitimate. Id. at 27:22–28:18. These strategies worked, in Seibel's view, because the students "could say to themselves, ‘Well, he's not really doing this for his sexual gratification, he's doing it for our own benefit.’ " Id. at 73:14–21.

C. Reports About Seibel's Inappropriate Conduct

Shattuck students and teachers raised concerns about Seibel's conduct as early as 1996. Scott Ewing ("Ewing"), a student who lived in Whipple, told dorm parent Jay Long ("Long") during the 1996–1997 school year that Seibel did not like him because he would not get naked in front of Seibel as the hockey players did. Ewing Decl. [Docket No. 77] ¶¶ 7–8, 16. Long told Ewing that he had a paranoia complex. Id. ¶ 16. The following school year, 1997–1998, Ewing and a group of students told dorm parent Michael Cleary ("Cleary") that they felt singled out by Seibel compared to the hockey players who were involved in streaking and who walked around naked in the dorms. Id. ¶¶ 18–19. Cleary dismissed the group's concerns as insignificant. Id. ¶ 20.

During the 1999–2000 school year, a male student told dorm parent Max Prokopy ("Prokopy") that Seibel had approached the student...