Page:Adams ex rel. Kasper v. School Board of St. Johns County, Florida (2018).pdf/4

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.

Case 3:17-cv-00739-TJC-JBT Document 192 Filed 07/26/18 Page 4 of 70 PageID 10682

be brought to trial.[1] See Docs. 50, 57 (Order and hearing transcript). The Court held a three day non-jury trial on December 11, 12, and 13, 2017, hearing testimony from ten witnesses[2] and admitting numerous exhibits.[3] Two witnesses were unable to appear live and the Court agreed to accept their videotaped deposition testimony and a declaration from one.[4] The parties also stipulated to certain facts that are deemed admitted.[5] A month after the trial (and while school was out of session), the


  1. Along the way, plaintiff dismissed two school officials he had sued in their official capacities, leaving the School Board of St. Johns County, Florida, as the only defendant. See Docs. 45, 49, 60.
  2. One of those witnesses was Frank D. Upchurch, III, the long-time School Board Attorney who advised the School Board on its Best Practices Guidelines (discussed below) and who is well familiar with School Board policies and the facts described herein. References to testimony by “the School Board Attorney” are references to Mr. Upchurch’s testimony and should not be confused with statements or argument by the School Board’s outside counsel who have represented it throughout this litigation and at trial.
  3. The minutes of the bench trial are of record (Docs. 148, 149, and 150), as are the parties’ exhibits (Docs. 151 & 152), and Court exhibits (Doc. 166). Additional exhibits containing sensitive medical or personal identifying information were filed under seal (Docs. 167, 168, 169, 170, 171). References to exhibits admitted at trial are denoted herein as Pl. Ex. __ (for plaintiff’s exhibit), Def. Ex. __ (for defendant’s exhibit), or Ct. Ex. __ (for Court exhibits). The public record includes redacted versions of the trial transcripts (Docs. 160-1, 161, 162) which the Court cites throughout this opinion. The unredacted transcripts are under seal at Docs. 143, 144, 145. The Court has had no need to cite to the unredacted transcripts in this decision.
  4. See Doc. 166, Ct. Ex. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. In accepting the video depositions, the Court agreed to rule on the numerous objections contained therein. See Doc. 160-1 at Tr. 147. To the extent the Court relies on testimony to which an objection was lodged, the objection is overruled.
  5. See Doc. 116 at § I (p. 22).

4