![]() ![]() The complaint calls out Gibson as the “prime ringleader,” the attorneys for “advocating” for censorship, and the school board members and district staff for allowing it to happen. Granted in part, denied in part.“Each individually-named defendant has either perpetuated the censorship of Plaintiffs’ speech, personally directed that censorship, or exhibited actual knowledge of and acquiescence in the censorship,” the lawsuit claims. The District did not prove that any of the records reflect internal, predecisional deliberations. The District did not prove that any records are exempt draft policies. The District did not prove that any records are of collective bargaining. ![]() The District proved that certain records do not exist within its possession, custody or control. The District proved that some records contain exempt employee information. The District proved that some records contain exempt personal information. The District provided that some records relate to a noncriminal investigation. The District proved that some email records are protected by the attorney-client privilege. A portion of the Request was not sufficiently specific. Portions of the Request were sufficiently specific. Request sought email communications regarding allegations of workplace conduct problems and complaints involving a District teacher, a surveillance video and cellphone billing records.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |