A federal judge from the Northern District of Illinois has denied a motion to compel filed by a former basketball coach and athletic director, who sued the school district that formerly employed him.
In so ruling, the court held that discussions that occurred in board meetings, some of which involved the plaintiff, were protected by the Illinois Open Meetings Act, Deliberative Process, and Attorney-Client Privileges.
Steve Sandholm was previously employed at Dixon High School as the boys Head Basketball Coach and the Athletic and Activities Director (AD). Sandholm claimed that on September 5, 2007, the Dixon Public School District No. 170 entered into a written agreement to employ him in the aforementioned positions until the conclusion of the 2010-2011 school year.
However, on April 23, 2008, the Dixon School District Board of Education voted to remove Sandholm as coach. Then, on September 17, 2008, the board members took action to remove him as AD.
Sandholm sued, alleging that District 170 violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 623 et seq, when the board voted to remove him as coach and subsequently filled that position with a younger man. He also alleged that District 170 and certain individual board members violated his procedural due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 when the board removed him as AD.
During discovery, the plaintiff moved to compel the production of audiotapes, or transcripts, of the September 5, 2007 and the September 17, 2008 executive school board meetings.
In response, the defendants argued that each transcript in its entirety, which it presented to the court, is subject to the Illinois Open Meetings Act, and that portions of the transcripts are subject to the deliberative process privilege. The defendants also claimed that portions of the transcripts are subject to the attorney-client privilege.
The Illinois Open Meetings Act, according to the court, provides that, absent the governmental entity’s consent, “the verbatim record of a meeting closed to the public shall not be open for public inspection or subject to discovery in any administrative or judicial proceeding other than one brought to enforce this Act.” 5 Ill. Comp. Stat. 120/2.06(e).
Regarding the Act, the court wrote that “the material contained therein is of little relevance to the claims set forth in the plaintiff’s complaint. Although the discussions at times pertained to the plaintiff and his employment, the plaintiff’s age is not discussed and the transcripts do not establish whether the plaintiff’s due process rights were violated. They offer little, if anything, to further the plaintiff’s claims. It appears that the importance of the policy underlying the Illinois Open Meetings Act privilege outweighs the plaintiff’s need for the information … . Under these circumstances, the court denies the plaintiff’s motion to compel. For completeness, the court will address the defendants’ assertions of the deliberative process privilege and the attorney-client privilege.”
The Deliberative Process Privilege, meanwhile, “protects communications that are part of the decision-making process of a governmental agency.” United States v. Farley, 11 F.3d 1385, 1389 (7th Cir. 1993).
The court restated the plaintiff’s claims that “the transcripts are material to his allegations that he entered into a contract to serve as Athletic Director until the end of the 2010-2011 school year, and that he was removed from that position in violation of his constitutional due process rights. The plaintiff is incorrect. The discussions that appear on the transcripts do not address the plaintiff’s age and do not establish whether his due process rights were violated. They offer little, if anything, to further the plaintiff’s claims. The plaintiff has not shown a particularized need for this information. The defendants’ interest in having frank discussions regarding the decisions with which they are entrusted outweighs The plaintiff’s need for the information in this case. Under these circumstances, the plaintiff’s motion to compel is denied.”
As for the Attorney-Client Privilege, the court found that a statement given by the board’s attorney in the disputed transcript “constitutes legal advice given from legal counsel to his client, making it subject to the privilege.”
Steve Sandholm v. The Dixon Public School District No. 170, et al.; N.D. Ill.; Case No. 09 C 50119, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22032; 3/10/2010
Attorneys of Record: (for plaintiff) Erie DeNeal Johnson, LEAD ATTORNEY, Stephen T. Fieweger, Katz, Huntoon & Fieweger, P.C., Moline, IL. (for defendants)
John E. Cassidy , III, LEAD ATTORNEY, David B. Mueller, Cassidy & Mueller, Peoria, IL.
