In December 2018, then fifteen-year-old John Doe and his classmate, Catherine Roe, engaged in what Doe characterized as a consensual sexual encounter. The students continued to engage in additional sexual activity over the following months. Five months later, Roe informed her parents that the initial encounter had not been consensual and amounted to rape, though she characterized the subsequent encounters as consensual. Roe’s parents informed school officials at Porter-Gaud, a private preparatory school in Charleston, South Carolina, and the School contacted law enforcement. Police declined to arrest Doe, citing lack of evidence and witness statements that supported Doe’s version of events.
Following the criminal investigation, Roe allegedly harassed and physically confronted Doe at school. The School retained a third-party firm, T&M Protection Resources, to conduct an internal investigation. The investigators ultimately concluded there was no policy violation by Doe, and the School notified him that he remained in good standing. Doe subsequently filed a civil lawsuit, asserting both state and federal claims. The state claims were remanded to state court earlier this year, leaving only one federal claim pending: a composite civil rights claim alleging violations of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments and Title IX.
The dispute at issue arose during discovery. Doe served requests for production seeking documents from two unrelated investigations that the School had also previously commissioned T&M to conduct. Doe argued the materials were relevant because they would demonstrate that the School conducted his investigation differently, suggesting unequal treatment in violation of Title IX. Porter-Gaud objected and filed a motion for protective order, asserting that the unrelated materials were irrelevant, confidential, and in some cases privileged.
The Court conducted an in camera review of the disputed documents and granted the School’s motion for a protective order. It denied Doe’s competing motion to compel. The Court reasoned that the unrelated materials were not relevant to the lone federal claim remaining in the case and were unlikely to lead to admissible evidence. Because the other materials were “beyond the scope of and irrelevant to this litigation,” the Court concluded that requiring their production would result in unnecessary delay and harm to the School’s confidentiality interests. The Court declined to reach the School’s alternative arguments that the documents were protected by attorney-client privilege or the work product doctrine.
Doe v. Porter-Gaud School (D.S.C. Sept. 29, 2025) 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 191634.
Note: LCW covered this case previously. While the Court in this case shielded prior investigative reports from discovery, the request itself demonstrates that investigation reports can become the subject of legal disputes. Schools should carefully define the scope and confidentiality expectations for each investigation and consult with LCW about whether privilege may apply.