Doe et al. v. Ursuline High School et al.

PEARSON, J.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
DOE, et al., 	)
) 	CASE NO. 4:25-CV-01822
Plaintiffs, 	)
)
v. 	) 	JUDGE BENITA Y. PEARSON
)
URSULINE HIGH SCHOOL, et al., 	) 	MEMORANDUM OF
) 	OPINION AND ORDER
Defendants. 	)
)
[Resolving ECF No. 16, ECF No. 20, ECF
No. 30, and ECF No. 33]
The Court considers the following motions. First, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Permit Pre-Rule
26(f) Conference Discovery (ECF No. 16). Second, Plaintiffs’ Motion for an Extension to File
an Amended Complaint (ECF No. 20). Third, the Parties’ Joint Motion for Extension to Comply
with Court Order (ECF No. 30). Finally, Diocese Defendants’ Motion to Enlarge the Time to
Respond to an Operative Complaint (ECF No. 33). Each motion is granted for the reasons
herein.
I. 	BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs Son Doe and Daughter Doe were students at Defendant Ursuline High School, a
co-educational private, Catholic school in Youngstown, Ohio. ECF No. 1 at Page ID #: 6.
Plaintiff Mother Doe sued on their behalf alleging violations of Title IX and myriad state laws
(including child pornography, tampering with evidence, tampering with records, obstructing
justice, culpable negligence, child neglect, failure to report abuse, negligent and reckless hiring,
training, supervision, and retention, dissemination of intimate images, assault, battery, intentional
Case: 4:25-cv-01822-BYP Doc #: 34 Filed: 10/30/25 1 of 6. PageID #: <pageID>

(4:25-CV-01822)
2
infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and spoliation)
stemming from a multi-state school football trip. ECF No. 1 at PageID ##: 4, 120; see 20 U.S.C.
§ 1681 et seq; Ohio Rev. Code §§ 2901.31, 2921.12(A)(1)–(2), 2913.42(A)(1)–(1)(2),
2921.32(A)(4)–(5); Ala. Code §§ 16-1-23(c), 26-14-3; Fla. Stat. §§ 1006.135, 39.205, 784.05;
Tenn. Code § 49-2-120.
II. 	DISCUSSION
A. 	Plaintiffs’ motion for limited pre-Rule 26(f) discovery is appropriate to identify
unknown parties and preserve critical evidence.
Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, litigants “may not seek discovery from any
source before the parties have conferred as required by Rule 26(f), except in a proceeding
exempted from initial disclosure under Rule 26(a)(1)(B), or when authorized by these rules, by
stipulation, or by court order.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d)(1). The Court may grant early discovery
for good cause shown. See, e.g. Voltage Pictures, LLC v. Does 1-43, No. 1:13-CV-465, 2013
WL 1874862, at *5 (N.D. Ohio May 3, 2013). “Good cause may be found where the need for
expedited discovery, in consideration of the administration of justice, outweighs the prejudice to
the responding party.” Best v. Mobile Streams, Inc., No. 1:12-CV-564, 2012 WL 5996222, at *1
(S.D. Ohio Nov. 30, 2012) (citing Arista Records, LLC v. Does 1–15, No. 2:07-CV-450, 2007
WL 5254326, at *2 (S.D. Ohio May 17, 2007)). Under the Family Educational Rights and
Privacy Act (FERPA), however, high schools must provide adequate notice before releasing
student information (e.g., name, addresses, contact details) and allow parents an opportunity to
withhold their consent. See 20 U.S.C. § 1232g(a)(1)(A).
Plaintiffs move under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d) for leave to conduct two limited forms of
early discovery. First––from Defendant Ursuline High School––documents identifying the
Case: 4:25-cv-01822-BYP Doc #: 34 Filed: 10/30/25 2 of 6. PageID #: <pageID>

(4:25-CV-01822)
3
names, addresses, and contact information of several student Defendants and their parents in
order to facilitate service.1 ECF No. 16 at PageID #: 240. Second––from non-party Snap, Inc.––
preservation and recovery of deleted group messages, photos, and videos depicting alleged
hazing and abuse. ECF No. 16 at PageID ##: 240–41.
Regarding Defendant Ursuline High School, the discovery of the identities of all
Defendants and rendering service thereon is necessary. See Voltage Pictures, 2013 WL
1874862, at *6. Furthermore, FERPA does not prohibit student information disclosure in
compliance with a federal court order, as is the case herein. See 20 U.S.C. § 1232g(b); United
States v. Miami U., 294 F.3d 797, 812 (6th Cir. 2002). Regarding Snap, Inc., Plaintiffs plausibly
contend there is inherent risk in delay given that “someone deleted the football team’s group
Snapchat the same day Mother Doe reported the matter to Ursuline administrators.” ECF No. 16
at PageID #: 237 (cleaned up). The information sought by Plaintiffs may disappear or face
deletion without early discovery, given that it is stored on the servers of a non-party under no
obligation of preservation. See Digital Sin, Inc. v. Does 1-176, 279 F.R.D. 241–42 (S.D.N.Y.
2012). Thus, the Court determines that pre-Rule 26(f) conference discovery is appropriate
because: (1) Plaintiffs’ requests are narrowly tailored; (2) the information sought from Defendant
Ursuline High School and Snap, Inc. is necessary to advance the dispute towards resolution; (3)
Plaintiffs’ needs outweigh any potential prejudice or burden to Defendants;2 and (4) there is a
risk that evidence will be lost absent early discovery.
1 Defendant Ursuline has declined to release this information due to FERPA privacy
restrictions. ECF No. 16 at PageID #: 237.
2 Defendant Ursuline contends that “the only information that Plaintiffs still may
need to obtain is limited to . . . [Players 1, 8, 11, 13, 20, 21]” and that denying Plaintiffs’
motion “is certainly preferable to requiring Ursuline to provide notice to the parents, give
Case: 4:25-cv-01822-BYP Doc #: 34 Filed: 10/30/25 3 of 6. PageID #: <pageID>

(4:25-CV-01822)
4
B. 	Extensions of Time
1. 	Plaintiffs’ motion for additional time to file an amended complaint is
appropriate, and the first amended complaint does not affect their right to
amend under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1).
Under the Federal Rules, the Court may extend a due date for good cause either before
expiration (upon request) or after expiration (upon a showing of excusable neglect). See Fed. R.
Civ. P. 6(b)(1). Litigants may amend their pleadings once as a matter of course within 21 days
of service. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1). Thereafter, amendment requires either consent of the
opposing party or leave of the Court, which is freely given “when justice so requires.” Fed. R.
Civ. P. 15(a)(2).
Plaintiffs move for additional time to file an amended complaint due to newly discovered
information requiring verification, extensive identity redaction, and ongoing settlement
negotiations. ECF No. 20 at PageID #: 255–58, ¶ B. Defendants do not oppose the motion.
ECF No. 21 at PageID ##: 263–64. Plaintiffs reply requests clarification as to whether the
Court’s previous order (ECF No. 19) affects their right to amend without leave under Fed. R.
Civ. P.15(a)(1). ECF No 24 at PageID ##: 474–75.
Given the procedural context and the Court’s desire to facilitate the efficient disposition
of this dispute, allowing additional time for Plaintiffs to prepare and file an amended complaint
is appropriate. The first amended complaint (ECF No. 22) shall be treated as compliant with the
the parents an opportunity to object, then have the Court review the records in camera to
determine if they are discoverable and in compliance.” (ECF No. 27 at PageID #: 485, 488.
The Court declines to micromanage litigation tactics, as the parties can resolve their
FERPA-compliant disclosures among themselves as the cutoff for service approaches.
This Order proscribes the minimally acceptable outer bounds and does not preclude the
parties from resolving this procedural dispute more efficiently counsel-to-counsel.
Case: 4:25-cv-01822-BYP Doc #: 34 Filed: 10/30/25 4 of 6. PageID #: <pageID>

(4:25-CV-01822)
5
Court’s Order regarding the use of pseudonyms (ECF No. 19) and does not forfeit Plaintiffs’
right to freely amend within 21 days under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1).
2. 	Additional time is appropriate for the parties to confer and prepare a
stipulated protective order considering uncompleted service, outstanding
waivers, and undetermined counsel.
The parties jointly moved for an extension of time to prepare and submit their stipulated
protective order as directed by the Court. ECF No. 30. Give the Court’s earlier Order regarding
the use of pseudonyms (ECF No. 19), allowing additional time for a comprehensive protective
order is appropriate to allow the Parties to address uncompleted service, waivers, and
undetermined legal representation. ECF No. 30 at PageID #: 503–4.
3. 	Defendants’ motion to enlarge time to respond is well taken.
Diocese Defendants motion to enlarge their time to respond to the anticipated amended
complaint (ECF No. 33) is granted.
III. CONCLUSION
Plaintiffs’ Motion to Permit Pre-Rule 26(f) Conference Discovery (ECF No. 16) is
granted. Defendants shall provide Plaintiffs with the names, addresses, and contract information
of Defendant Players 1, 4, 8, 9, 11, 29, and 21 and their parents or guardians no later than
November 10, 2025. Defendant Ursuline High School shall notify Defendant Students and their
parents before such disclosure in compliance with FERPA. See 20 U.S.C. § 1232g(b)(2)(B).
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Extension to File Amended Complaint (ECF No. 20) is also granted. They
shall file their amended complaint no later than November 10, 2025. The Joint Motion for
Extension to Comply with Court Order (ECF No. 30) is granted. The Parties shall confer and
jointly file a stipulated protective order no later than November 7, 2025. Finally, Diocese
Defendants’ Motion to Enlarge the Time to Respond to an Operative Complaint (ECF No. 33) is
Case: 4:25-cv-01822-BYP Doc #: 34 Filed: 10/30/25 5 of 6. PageID #: <pageID>

(4:25-CV-01822)
6
granted. Not later than December 1, 2025, Diocese Defendants shall respond to the anticipated
amended complaint.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
October 30, 2025 	/s/ Benita Y. Pearson
Date 	Benita Y. Pearson
United States District Judge
Case: 4:25-cv-01822-BYP Doc #: 34 Filed: 10/30/25 6 of 6. PageID #: <pageID>