Defendant or non-party?

[rocko226]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Michigan

I filed suit in federal court several months ago, naming as Defendants a school Board (the entity itself) as well as individually naming 2 of the members of that Board as well as individually naming the Superintendent. I am acting pro-se. It is a First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment suit for the circumstances that led up to the nonrenewal of my employment contract with the District.

A dispute has arisen between myself and Defendant's attorney regarding exactly who is considered a Defendant and who is considered a non-party. The Board itself is, pursuant to the District's bylaws, composed of 7 members. I individually named two of those members as Defendants due to their individual actions but I also consider two other members of the Board as witnesses and wish to seek discovery from them. I am also seeking discovery from other witnesses including Principals and a Vice-Principal.

The dispute began when Defendants made their Initial Disclosures, listing 7 witnesses, listing the attorney herself and her office as the contact information for each and every one of those witnesses.

Without disclosing potentially confidential communications between myself and their attorney, I will summarize by simply stating that their attorney has raised a standing objection to me directly contacting any of those people for the purpose of acquiring informal discovery and is also arguing that I need not subpoena those people to compel appearance at depositions. I assume they also would assert privilege as Defendants if I question them at deposition about any communications they had with the Defendant's attorney.

So my legal question is, should I be treating the Principals and Board members not individually named in the suit as Defendants, or as third parties?

 

[Nellibelle]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Michigan

I filed suit in federal court several months ago, naming as Defendants a school Board (the entity itself) as well as individually naming 2 of the members of that Board as well as individually naming the Superintendent. I am acting pro-se. It is a First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment suit for the circumstances that led up to the nonrenewal of my employment contract with the District.

A dispute has arisen between myself and Defendant's attorney regarding exactly who is considered a Defendant and who is considered a non-party. The Board itself is, pursuant to the District's bylaws, composed of 7 members. I individually named two of those members as Defendants due to their individual actions but I also consider two other members of the Board as witnesses and wish to seek discovery from them. I am also seeking discovery from other witnesses including Principals and a Vice-Principal.

The dispute began when Defendants made their Initial Disclosures, listing 7 witnesses, listing the attorney herself and her office as the contact information for each and every one of those witnesses.

Without disclosing potentially confidential communications between myself and their attorney, I will summarize by simply stating that their attorney has raised a standing objection to me directly contacting any of those people for the purpose of acquiring informal discovery and is also arguing that I need not subpoena those people to compel appearance at depositions. I assume they also would assert privilege as Defendants if I question them at deposition about any communications they had with the Defendant's attorney.

So my legal question is, should I be treating the Principals and Board members not individually named in the suit as Defendants, or as third parties?

If you named the School Board as a Defendant and also named 2 members of that School Board individual Defendants as well, then the Principal(s) and Vice Principal are 3rd parties. The board members who are not individually named as Defendants ARE Defendants since you made the School Board a Defendant in your suit, since they are members of the School Board.

 

[Mark Maroon]

If you named the School Board as a Defendant and also named 2 members of that School Board individual Defendants as well, then the Principal(s) and Vice Principal are 3rd parties. The board members who are not individually named as Defendants ARE Defendants since you made the School Board a Defendant in your suit, since they are members of the School Board.

Isn't the school board a separate entity from it's members, kind of like a company and it's officers. When you sue a corporation, it's officers (or it's members if it is an LLC) aren't defendants. Is it different for a school board?

 

[quincy]

Isn't the school board a separate entity from it's members, kind of like a company and it's officers. When you sue a corporation, it's officers (or it's members if it is an LLC) aren't defendants. Is it different for a school board?

No, it is not different for a school board.

It would be nice if Nellibelle could explain his/her answer and provide some legal support for it (not that he will be able to).

 

[rocko226]

I was fairly confident on my position regarding the Principals as they're just employees. I wasn't so sure about the Board members themselves, which it sounds like there's a difference of opinion here as well.

I'm tempted to just seek a declaratory statement from the Court on this issue since I may have to be filing a motion to compel discovery soon anyways.

 

[latigo]

Communications between opposing counsel is NOT confidential! "Potentially" or otherwise! Where did you come up with that flawed notion?

Defendants? Non-parties? Third parties? Huh?

The fact that you cannot distinguish between the three doesn't appear to bode well for your "client". A client whom by the way, A. Lincoln would label a "fool".

 

[rocko226]

Communications between opposing counsel is NOT confidential! "Potentially" or otherwise! Where did you come up with that flawed notion?

Every email I receive from opposing counsel has a disclaimer that says "The information contained in this email is confidential." Not that this has anything to do with my question.

Defendants? Non-parties? Third parties? Huh?

I thought it was a pretty simple question with a not necessarily simple answer. Defendants are not treated the same as non-parties under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, so the distinction is an important one.

The fact that you cannot distinguish between the three doesn't appear to bode well for your "client". A client whom by the way, A. Lincoln would label a "fool".

I'm pro-se, hence why I came to this forum to ask my question. I wasn't expecting personal insults.

 

[quincy]

Every email I receive from opposing counsel has a disclaimer that says "The information contained in this email is confidential." Not that this has anything to do with my question.

I thought it was a pretty simple question with a not necessarily simple answer. Defendants are not treated the same as non-parties under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, so the distinction is an important one.

I'm pro-se, hence why I came to this forum to ask my question. I wasn't expecting personal insults.

I think it would behoove you to sit down with an attorney in your area of Michigan for personal assistance with your case, rocko226. Your questions indicate that you might have some difficulty in federal court against the Board's attorney.

Depending on your location in Michigan, there could be legal aid clinics and law schools that might be able to provide you with some advice and direction at low-or-no cost.

The Board, as a note, is an entity, not a person. Board members are generally protected from liability to third parties for the actions of the Board, unless a member is personally involved in the violation that gave rise to the suit - in which case, you name that particular individual as a defendant.

Good luck.

 

[Mark Maroon]

I'm pro-se, hence why I came to this forum to ask my question. I wasn't expecting personal insults.

Nobody ever expects....the Spanish Inquisition...

 

[Paul84]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Michigan

I filed suit in federal court several months ago, naming as Defendants a school Board (the entity itself) as well as individually naming 2 of the members of that Board as well as individually naming the Superintendent. I am acting pro-se. It is a First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment suit for the circumstances that led up to the nonrenewal of my employment contract with the District.

A dispute has arisen between myself and Defendant's attorney regarding exactly who is considered a Defendant and who is considered a non-party. The Board itself is, pursuant to the District's bylaws, composed of 7 members. I individually named two of those members as Defendants due to their individual actions but I also consider two other members of the Board as witnesses and wish to seek discovery from them. I am also seeking discovery from other witnesses including Principals and a Vice-Principal.

The dispute began when Defendants made their Initial Disclosures, listing 7 witnesses, listing the attorney herself and her office as the contact information for each and every one of those witnesses.

Without disclosing potentially confidential communications between myself and their attorney, I will summarize by simply stating that their attorney has raised a standing objection to me directly contacting any of those people for the purpose of acquiring informal discovery and is also arguing that I need not subpoena those people to compel appearance at depositions. I assume they also would assert privilege as Defendants if I question them at deposition about any communications they had with the Defendant's attorney.

So my legal question is, should I be treating the Principals and Board members not individually named in the suit as Defendants, or as third parties?

I am also a pro-se plaintiff and looked into the issue of potentially contacting employees of the represented defendants. Ethical rules prevent an opposing attorney from doing that but Nolo Press's book for pro-se litigants ("Lawsuit Survival Guide") said it was fine to do since you're not an attorney. Nevertheless, I refrained from doing so, and contacted only a few former employees (i.e. no longer the opposing party). If the opposing counsel objects but doesn't file a motion with the judge to restrain such behaviour, the lawyer is just blowing smoke. They like to try to intimidate pro se's.