United States District Court, E.D. New York
J.A. an infant under 18 years of age, by and through his Guardian Ad Litem, BRUCE WOLF; A.R. and J.D., infants under 18 years of age, by and through their parent and natural guardian, MIRIAN RIVERA; A.M., by and through his next friend, JO ANN DOUGLAS, Plaintiffs,
SCO FAMILY OF SERVICES, Defendant. J.M., M.M., D.M., Plaintiffs,
SCO FAMILY OF SERVICES, Defendant.
Y. SHIELDS UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
in these consolidated cases allege that the Defendant SCO
Family of Services (“SCO'), a foster care agency,
is responsible for abuse they suffered while under the care
of a foster/adoptive father who Plaintiffs characterize as a
“madman and pedophile.” See Amended
Complaints appearing as Docket Entries Nos. 1 in consolidated
cases filed under docket numbers CV 16-5269 and CV 17-306.
before this Court are discovery disputes by filed by both
parties. First, Plaintiffs filed a motion to compel appearing
as DE 54 in CV 16-5269, and DE 44 in CV 17-306.
Defendant's response to this motion appears as DE 55 in
CV 16-5269, and DE 44 in CV 17-306. In addition to responding
to Plaintiff's motion, Defendant's response raises
logistical issues with respect to the taking of Plaintiff
J.M.'s deposition. Since that issue is raised only in
J.M.'s case, Plaintiff has responded to those issues by
way of a motion for a protective order filed only under
Docket Entry No. 56 in CV 16-5269. Following is the
Court's disposition of all issues raised in these
scope of discovery is set forth in Rule 26 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure. It provides that:
Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged
matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense
and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the
importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount
in controversy, the parties' relative access to relevant
information, the parties' resources, the importance of
the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden
or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely
benefit. Information within this scope of discovery need not
be admissible in evidence to be discoverable.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).
this standard in mind, the Court turns to the merits of the
Disposition of the Motions
Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel (DE 54 in CV 16-5269 and
DE 44 in CV 17-306)
motion raises two issues. The first is addressed to
Defendant's redaction of identifying information
regarding minors in foster care. The second seeks to expand
the scope of document production.
Redaction of Identifying Information
document production includes documents and electronic
information referencing children in the care of the
individual alleged to have engaged in the conduct that is the
subject of these lawsuits. Defendant's production redacts
only the names, birthdays and social security numbers of
these children. Plaintiffs seek to have all redactions
removed on the grounds that identifying information is
relevant to their claims. They note that ...