Kerrie Johnson v. Christopher Winters et al.

Summary

The Vermont Superior Court granted in part and denied in part Kerrie Johnson’s motion to reconsider an earlier discovery order concerning her Rule 75 mandamus claim against DCF/DAIL. The court granted the defendants’ motion for a protective order, struck the existing discovery requests, and allowed Johnson 30 days to submit narrower requests focused on whether DCF/DAIL properly exercised its discretion in denying access to investigation files.

Holdings

1. The court's review is limited to determining whether DCF/DAIL exercised its discretion under 33 V.S.A. § 4921(c)(1) in a nonarbitrary manner when denying plaintiff's request for the redacted investigation files; the court may not second-guess the substantive good-cause determination.
2. Discovery in the remaining Rule 75 claim must be relevant to and proportional to the limited procedural review, including how DCF/DAIL processed the request, who made the determination, the nature of the decision-making process, the considerations involved, and the determination with contemporaneous supporting reasoning not otherwise disclosed.
3. The existing discovery requests were properly struck, and defendants' motion for a protective order was granted, but plaintiff was permitted 30 days to revise and re-serve discovery consistent with the limited scope of the Rule 75 claim.

Questions Presented

1. What is the permissible scope of discovery in plaintiff's Rule 75 mandamus challenge to DCF/DAIL's denial of requested investigation files?
2. Whether plaintiff may use discovery to obtain the underlying confidential files, information about unrelated or dismissed claims, broader trends, and other investigations.
3. Whether defendants were entitled to a protective order and whether plaintiff's discovery requests should be struck subject to refiling within the proper scope.

Disposition

other