Roe

Roe v. Grossmont Union High School District

Good Law
United States District Court, Southern District of CaliforniaJune 16, 20203:19-cv-01966California974 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 ROE, a minor, by and through her Case No.: 19-cv-1966-CAB-BGS Guardian ad Litem, JUSTIN SLAGLE,

ORDER:

Plaintiff, (1) DOCKETING JOINT EX v. PARTE MOTION 12 (2) DENYING JOINT EX PARTE

GROSSMONT UNION HIGH SCHOOL

MOTION FOR IN CAMERA DISTRICT, et al.,

REVIEW OF STUDENT

14 Defendants. RECORDS

16 17 Plaintiff ROE and Defendants GROSSMONT UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT, APRIL BAKER, JOSH REIDERER, ROBIN BALLARIN, and MICHAEL FALCONER (“the Parties”), submitted to the Court through email a Joint Ex Parte Motion for In Camera Review of the student file of newly-named Cross-Defendant JOHN DOE. The Parties move the Court to issue an order releasing those records after in camera review. For the reasons set for the below, the Court ORDERS the Clerk to file the Joint Ex Parte Motion in the case docket and the Court DENIES the motion. 25 26 27 1 Defendants filed a Cross-Claim for equitable indemnity…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.