The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
KYLE AUCOIN-MELOHN CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS NUMBER: 24-1676
ST. CHARLES PARISH SCHOOL BOARD SECTION: “D” (5)
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is the Motion to Compel (rec. doc. 34) filed by Plaintiff Kyle Aucoin-
Melohn. Defendant St. Charles Parish School Board (“Defendant” or “SCPSB”) opposes the
motion (rec. doc. 36), and Plaintiff has filed a reply. (Rec. doc. 37). Having reviewed the
pleadings and the case law, the Court rules as follows.
Destrehan High School (“DHS”) employed Plaintiff as a former Talented Theater
teacher from approximately August 2017 until his alleged constructive discharge on
December 9, 2022. (Rec. doc. 1 at 2). In short, Plaintiff alleges that DefenIdda.nt
discriminated, harassed, and retaliated against him because of his sexual orientation. ( ).
At issue in this motion to compel are three specific discovery requests propounded
on Defend ant by Plaintiff:
(1) Interrogatory No. 14: Please identify any and all other St. Charles
Parish School District Talented Theater teachers who received a
Notice of Performance Concerns and/or was otherwise disciplined for
making comments regarding the School District’s funding or lack of
funding for theater productions. (Rec. doc. 34-3).
(2) Request for Production of Documents No. 16: Please provide copies of
any and all documents reflecting, referring or relating in any way to
any write-ups, Notices of Performance Concern, and/or other
documents reflecting, referring or relating to any disciplinary action
taken by the School Board/School District against any Talented
Theater teacher during the time period specified in the Instructions
section of this Second Set of Requests for Production. In particular,
please provide any responsive documents relating to any disciplinary
Talented Theater Program, including but not limited to: Megan Harms,
Lucas Harms, Christina Rivas, Lauren Champagne, Bethany Auyso,
John Lehon, Meredeth Owens, and Danny Pitre for an alleged violation
of any School District policy regarding the school District’s contract
approval process and procedures. (Rec. doc. 34-5).
(3) Request for Production of Documents No. 5: Please provide copies of
any photographs, video recordings, audio recordings, and/or other
documents, as defined above, reflecting, referring or relating in any
way to Plaintiff’s employment by and/or his constructive
discharge/departure from his employment with the St. Charles Parish
School Board and/or to any allegations set forth in his Complaint.
(Rec. doc. 34-3).
The motion as to Request No. 5 is moot as Defendant has produced the audio and
video recordings sought by Plaintiff. The remaining dispute at issue in this motion is
whether the information and documents sought in Request Nos. 14 and 16 are
proportionate to the needs of Plaintiff’s claims because it is disputed whether the other
Talented Teachers – specifically listed in Request No. 16 – are legitimate comparators to
Plaintiff. prima facie
To establish a case of racial discrimination in employment, an employee
must demonstrate that (1) he is a member of a protected class, (2) he was qualified for the
position at issue, (3) he was the subject of an adverse employment action, and (4) he was
treated less favorably because of his membership in that protected class than were other
similarly situated employLeeees v w. Khaon wsaesr Cei tnyo St. mRye. mCob.ers of the protected class, under nearly
identical circumstances. , 574 F.3d 253, 259 (5th Cir. 2009). The
Court need only address the fourth element here. prima facie
A plaintiff may carry the fourth element of his discrimination claim by
“point[ing] to a comparator who was similarly situated” buEtr nwsat sv .“ tMreeattheodd imsto Hreo sfpav. oSryas.bly
than the plaintiff under nearly identical circumstances.” , 1
Rogers v. Pearland Indep. Sch. Dist.
F.4th 333, 340 (5th Cir. 2021) (citing , 827 F.3d 403, 410
(5th Cir. 2016)). As between the plaintiff and the comparator, “nearly identical
circumstances” exist when: (i) both employees have the same job responsibilities; (ii) both
employees have “essentially comparable violation histories;” and (iii) both employees
either shHaraerdd itshoen sva. mSkein snueprervisor or had their employment status determined by the same
person. , No. 20-30643, 2022 WL 2668514, at *3 (5th Cir. July 11, 2022).
Critically, “the plaintiff's conduct that drew the adverse employment decision must have
been ‘nearly identical’ toI dt.hat of thLee eproffered comparator who allegedly drew dissimilar
employment decisions.” (citing , 574 F.3d at 259).
There are two complaints regarding occurrences from Plaintiff’s employment that
have been timely exhausted by Plaintiff: (1) the Notice of Performance Concerns regarding
Plaintiff’s refusal to follow the instructions of the SCPSB risk manager when engaging
SCPSB in a contract involving dangerous flying equipment; and (2) Plaintiff’s alleged
constructive discharge. To prevail on this motion, then, Plaintiff must demonstrate that his
discovery requests are proportionate to the needs of at least one of these claims.
Plaintiff alleges that
in October 2022 Plaintiff was placed on administrative leave for allegedly
failing to follow contract approval procedures in connection with a theater
production of the “Wizard of Oz.” Defendant’s agents falsely stated that the
procedures had been in place and were posted on Blackboard “for years”;
however, no such procedures were posted or otherwise existed. Moreover,
on information and belief, none of the other eight Talented Theater teachers
employed by Defendant SCPSB, all of whom, on information and belief are
heterosexual, were aware of the existence of such procedures, had ever been
required to have any contract approved pursuant to any such procedures,
and had never been disciplined for not following the non-existent contract
approval procedures.
(Rec. doc. 1 at 3-4). While Defendant makes much of Plaintiff’s claim for constructive
discharge, it is clear that Request Nos. 14 and 16 – by their express terms – seek
information related to discipline for “an alleged violation of any School District policy
regarding the [S]chool District’s contract approval process and procedures.” (Rec. doc. 34-
5). Such disci.oev. ery requests are thus proportionate to at least one of Plaintiff’s claims in
this lawsuit, , whether his two-day suspension for failing to follow Defendant’s contract
approval procedures was based on Plaintiff’s sexuality when he contends that other
Talented Teachers, specifically, Lucas Harms, a heterosexual, received no like punishment
when he also allegedly failed to follow Defendant’s contract approval procedures.
Defendant also argues that none of the other listed non-parties is a comparator to
Plaintiff because they did not have the same immediate supervisor. Defendant maintains
that because all of the alleged comparators taught at different schools, each alleged
comparator’s principal would have been his or her supervisor. But the Fifth Circuit has
repeatedly held that, for the requirement of “nearly identical circumstances” to be Lmeeet, it is
not necessary that the comparator employees share an immediate supervisor. , 574
F.3d at 260-61. Plaintiff notes that Defendant’s ultimate decisionmaker is Dr. Kenneth
Oertling, Superintendent of the St. Charles Parish Public Schools. Attached to Defendant’s
motion is Plaintiff’s two-day suspension for failing to follow Defendant’s contract approval
procedures as to the “Wizard of Oz” production signed by Oertling himself. (Rec. docs. 36-
8, 36-9). Defendant’s argument is thus belied by the exhibits attached to its own
opposition. Discoverability is broader than admissibility. With the information before it,
the Court cannot say that the information sought by Plaintiff is disproportionate to the
needs of at least one of his claims. Accordingly, and for the foregoing reasons,
IT IS ORDERED DISMISSED AS MOOT IN
PART that the Motion to Compel (rec. doc. 34) is
wITit hIS r FegUaRrTd HtoE RRe OqRueDsEt RNEoD. 5. GRANTED IN
PART that the Motion to Compel (rec. doc. 34) is
with regard to Rneoqu laestet rN tohsa. 1n4 t eannd ( 1106). dDaeyfesn fdroanmt sthhael ld partoed oufc teh tihs eO irndfoerrmation and
documents to Plaintiff 26th June .
New Orleans, Louisiana, this day of , 2025.
MICHAEL B. NORTH
UNIT ED ST ATES M AGIST RATE JUDGE