The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
WESTERN DIVISION
L.P., by and through her guardians, J.P. and )
K.P., and J.P. and K.P. individually, )
Plaintiffs, )
)
V. ) No. 5:20-CV-481-BO
)
WAKE COUNTY BOARD OF )
EDUCATION, et al., )
Defendants. )
WAKE COUNTY BOARD OF )
EDUCATION, )
Plaintiff, )
)
) No. 5:22-CV-312-BO-BM
)
L.P., a minor, by and through her parent )
JOCELYN PEASE, )
Defendants. )
ORDER
These matters are before the Court on the Wake County Board of Education’s motion to
consolidate pursuant to Rule 42 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. L.P., J.P., and K.P. oppose
consolidation in full, but agree that there are some common issues of fact which would support
limited consolidation.
As the parties are familiar with the background and procedural posture of these matters,
the Court proceeds to consider the merits of the motion. Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure permits consolidation of actions involving common questions of law or fact. This Court
has broad discretion in determining whether to consolidate actions pending before it. A/S J. Ludwig
Mowinckles Rederi v. Tidewater Const. Co., 559 F.2d 928, 933 (4th Cir. 1977).
The Court has considered the arguments of the parties and determines that full
consolidation of these actions for discovery and motions practice is not warranted. Importantly,
the nature of the two actions is quite different. The first-filed action involves claims by L.P. and
her guardians that she was discriminated against by defendants in violation of, inter alia, the
Americans with Disabilities Act. L.P. and her guardians will bear the burden of proof in the
discrimination case and discovery and motions practice is anticipated. The second-filed action was
brought by the Wake County Board of Education under the Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act (IDEA) for review of the state administrative proceeding involving L.P. The IDEA case will
consist primarily of this Court’s de novo review the state administrative decision and
administrative record. E.L. ex rel. Lorsson v. Chapel Hill-Carrboro Bd. of Educ., 773 F.3d 509,
516-17 (4th Cir. 2014). In other words, though the parties to both actions are the same, the legal
issues are different enough that consolidation would promote confusion rather than economy.
However, there are sufficient factual similarities such that efficiencies may be gained by
recognizing the relatedness of the two cases. To that end, the Court will permit limited
consolidation in order to make the IDEA administrative record available for use in the
discrimination case. The Court will not consolidate the cases otherwise, including for the limited
purpose of sharing the docket. Finally, the Court agrees with L.P. that consideration of the IDEA
case first would promote economy and prevent confusion of the issues or inconsistent rulings, and
it determines that this sufficiently addresses the Wake County Board of Education’s concerns.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, and having considered the positions of the parties, the motion to consolidate
the above-captioned cases is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The cases are
consolidated to permit use of the administrative record to be filed in No. 5:22-CV-312-BO in case
No. 5:20-CV-481-BO. The parties should, however, continue to file motions and other documents
in the appropriate case on its separate docket with a single case caption.
Discovery in the discrimination case, No. 5:20-CV-481-BO, is hereby STAYED pending
completion of the briefing in the IDEA case, No. 5:22-CV-312-BO. The clerk is DIRECTED to
docket this order in both of the above-captioned cases. The clerk is further DIRECTED to return
the IDEA case, No. 5:22-CV-312-BO, to the magistrate judge for entry of a scheduling order.
Discovery in the discrimination case shall re-open when the briefing in the IDEA case is completed
and the dispositive motion(s) have been submitted to the undersigned.
SO ORDERED, this Zz day of March 2023.
4A Meee
TE NCE W. BOYLE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE