Goins v. Hitchcock I.S.D.

191 F.Supp.2d 860

Rolisha GOINS, Plaintiff, v. HITCHCOCK I.S.D. et al., Defendants.

No. G-01-498.

United States District Court, S.D. Texas, Galveston Division.

March 20, 2002.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Ronald J Merriweather, Houston, TX, for plaintiff.

Bridget R Robinson, Walsh Anderson et al., Austin, TX, for defendants.

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION REQUESTING A SPECIAL MASTER AND GRANTING DEFENDANTS' UNOPPOSED PARTIAL MOTION TO DISMISS

KENT, District Judge.

On August 16, 2001, Plaintiff Rolisha Goins ("Goins") filed this gender discrimination lawsuit against Defendants Hitchcock Independent School District ("HISD"), Josie M. Orr ("Orr"), individually and in her official capacity as President of the HISD Board of Education, Ron Meier ("Meier"), individually and in his official capacity as Vice President of the HISD Board of Education, Doris Scurry-Kennedy ("Scurry-Kennedy"), individually and in her official capacity as Secretary of the HISD Board of Education, Pat Turner ("Turner"), individually and in her official capacity as a member of the HISD Board of Education, Ricky Bond ("Bond"), individually and in his official capacity as a member of the HISD Board of Education, Shawn Kadlecek ("Kadlecek"), individually and in his official capacity as a member of the HISD Board of Education, Ruth A. Kane ("Kane"), individually and in her official capacity as Superintendent of HISD, and Bill Banks ("Banks"), individually and in his official capacity as former Superintendent of HISD. Based upon her allegations that Defendants intentionally discriminated against her on the basis of her gender and race, Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, declaratory relief and monetary damages pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 42 U.S.C § 1981, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. § 1681, and Texas state tort law. Now before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion Requesting a Special Master, filed February 21, 2002, and Defendants' Unopposed Partial Motion to Dismiss, filed December 18, 2001.¹ For the reasons articulated below, Plaintiff's Motion Requesting a Special Master is hereby DENIED and Defendants' Unopposed Partial Motion to Dismiss is hereby GRANTED.

I.

The following facts are relevant to the Court's consideration of the instant Motions. Plaintiff began coaching women's basketball and volleyball for HISD in August of 1993. Five years later, she filed a Title IX lawsuit against HISD ("1998 Lawsuit") alleging intentional gender discrimination by the school district. In that action, Plaintiff primarily contended that HISD's female and male athletic programs were funded in a disparate manner and that HISD's male athletes and coaches received preferential treatment.² Rather than engaging in prolonged litigation, the Parties resolved the 1998 Lawsuit by executing a "Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release of Claims" ("Settlement Agreement") on January 19, 1999. The Settlement Agreement comprehensively addressed Plaintiff's concerns about the alleged gender inequality in HISD athletics.³ Moreover, a lengthy portion of the Settlement Agreement outlined HISD's plan to form a district committee with "jurisdiction to consider claims of gender inequality in athletics under Title IX."⁴ The Parties agreed that Plaintiff's "sole and exclusive remedy for any alleged gender inequality in athletic programs actionable under Title IX arising after the effective date of [the Settlement Agreement would] be the presentation of a claim to the Title IX Committee, and the pursuit of administrative remedies through such Committee."

Unfortunately for both Plaintiff and Defendants, the Settlement Agreement failed to finally resolve Plaintiff's concerns. Because she believed that the HISD athletics program remained rife with gender discrimination, Plaintiff filed a complaint against the District with the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") in early 2001. After the EEOC issued her a "Right to Sue" letter on May 23, 2001, Plaintiff filed this lawsuit alleging that "[a]fter the settlement agreement was entered and filed of record, Defendants again began a campaign of deliberate discrimination [against her]." Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that, following the execution of the Settlement Agreement, (1) Defendants offered Plaintiff an employment contract which purported to pay her a salary that was equal to that of her male co-workers; (2) Plaintiff agreed to the employment contract, but later discovered that Defendants had misrepresented the fact that she would be compensated at a rate equal to the pay rate of her male co-workers; and (3) when she subsequently brought the matter before the Board of Trustees, the members "each steadfastly refused to offer her compensation that was consistent with the settlement agreement." Plaintiff further contends that Defendants "attempted to force [her] to accept lesser compensation by placing her in a false light with her peers ...[,] began a campaign to `black ball' her in the community and discourage future employers from offering her a contract of employment ...[, and] actively discouraged the other employees of the District to interact with [her]." Defendants' actions allegedly had the effect of fully ostracizing Plaintiff from her co-workers. Plaintiff resigned from her HISD coaching position in June of 2000.

II.

At a Rule 16 scheduling conference held January 4, 2002, the Court abated the instant action for forty-five days in order to allow Plaintiff's attorney to familiarize himself with the case.⁵ At that time, the Court instructed Plaintiff and Defendants to conduct informal discovery during the interim period as a means of assessing the viability (or lack thereof) of the claims at issue. Defense counsel subsequently informed counsel for Plaintiff that all of the Defendants' documentation pertaining to the viability issue had been submitted to the EEOC with Defendants' Response to Plaintiff's EEOC Complaint. Therefore, it was the Defendant's position that all of the documents relevant to the viability issue were already in Plaintiff's possession.

Nevertheless, Plaintiff's counsel mailed two letters to Defense counsel after the scheduling conference requesting a massive array of additional documents. The list of requested materials included (1) Defense counsel's entire case file from the 1998 Lawsuit; (2) the full text of the HISD liability policy; (3) the HISD evaluations and performance reviews of Banks from 1998 until he left HISD; (4) the complete records of the HISD Title IX committee; (4) all records related to Title IX complaints since the filing of the 1998 Lawsuit; (5) the vote records of all Title IX issues brought before the HISD Board of Trustees since the filing of the 1998 Lawsuit (6) the employment contracts for all HISD coaches from 1998 forward or, alternatively, a verified letter from the HISD superintendent setting forth the sports coached by each coach; and (7) a verified copy of Plaintiff's HISD employment file. Defendants objected to each of these requests via a letter dated February 8, 2002.⁶ Frustrated by these objections, Plaintiff now seeks the appointment of a Special Master to oversee discovery. Specifically, Plaintiff submits that "[d]ue to a tremendous lack of cooperation of HISD, in informal discovery, in the instant action and a complete lack of formal discovery in [her previous lawsuit], it is recommended to this Court, to appoint a Special Master, with broad powers to view and copy HISD documents, to take sworn testimony, and based upon these findings, to make recommendation to this Court, on the Title VII, and Title IX allegations in this lawsuit." In response, Defendants argue that the appointment of a Special Master is unnecessary in this case because (1) Defendants have reasonably complied with the informal discovery process;⁷ (2) any lack of discovery that may have occurred in the 1998 Lawsuit has no bearing on the present action; and because (3) the Court can consider and rule on dispositive motions without the aid of a Special Master. The Court agrees with Defendants.

III.

Generally, Rule 53 permits masters to be appointed only in exceptional circumstances. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 53(b) (stating that reference to a master "shall be the exception and not the rule"); see also Burlington Northern v. Dep't of Revenue, 934 F.2d 1064, 1071 (9th Cir.1991) (citing United States v. Suquamish Indian Tribe, 901 F.2d 772, 775 (9th Cir.1990) for the proposition that "Although masters may ... be appointed because of the complexity of litigation, we strictly apply Rule 53(b) to require a showing of exceptional conditions to justify the appointment"). Moreover, it is well-settled that "[t]he use of masters is `to aid judges in the performance of specific judicial duties, as they may arise in the progress of a cause,' and not to displace the court." La Buy v. Howes Leather Co., 352 U.S. 249, 256, 77 S.Ct. 309, 313, 1 L.Ed.2d 290 (1957) (citation omitted) (holding that a congested docket, the complexity of issues and the extensive amount of time required for a trial do not, either individually or as a whole, constitute an exceptional condition justifying a Rule 53 appointment of a Special Master in an antitrust case); Sierra Club v. Clifford, 257 F.3d 444, 446 (5th Cir.2001) ("The fact that a case has been pending for two years is not so exceptional as to require the reference of dispositive matters ... to a special master. The same applies to voluminous filings containing highly technical documents and declarations, which is pretty much the norm for modern federal litigation"); Piper v. Hauck, 532 F.2d 1016, 1019 (5th Cir.1976) (holding that a crowded docket and the plaintiff's filing of sixteen different lawsuits in the same court did not constitute an exceptional condition warranting a reference of the trial to a magistrate judge under Rule 53...