This article is by Keith Whitcomb Jr., of the Bennington Banner, in which it was first published Oct. 31, 2014.
BENNINGTON — The school district being sued over the alleged mistreatment of a student with autism wants to keep some of the boy’s records out of the public eye, a move his attorney said has little to do with the case itself.
In June, Joan Reilly, mother of 10-year-old Nathan Reilly, filed a lawsuit in Vermont Superior Court Bennington Civil Unit against the Southwest Vermont Supervisory Union, Bennington School District, former special education director Kathy Buck, and para-educators Clayton Buck (Kathy Buck’s son) and Laurie Connell.
Last year, Nathan Reilly’s aunt, Jean Pinsonneault, sent him to school with an audio recorder in his backpack after he began exhibiting behavioral problems at school, but seemingly nowhere else. The recording allegedly picked up Reilly being called “a dumbass kid with autism” by school employees and indicated he was kept in seclusion and told to clean his urine from the floor.
The suit, filed on behalf of Reilly by Bennington-based Winburn Law Offices, accuses the defendants of willful negligence.
The law firm representing the school district recently filed a motion for an order of protection regarding personnel records, and records from the Bennington Police Department. “Personnel records are entitled to special privacy considerations in the context of civil litigations,” wrote attorney John H. Klesch, of the Burlington firm Stitzel, Page, and Fletcher, P.C. which represents the district. “Plaintiff has requested in discovery the ‘personnel files’ of each of the individually named Defendants.” The request also includes the records of people not named as defendants.
Klesch proposes terms for the release of this information, including that Winburn Law keep the information confidential and only use it for the purpose of this suit, that copies will not be made for purposes other than legal ones, that Winburn will not give copies to its clients or anyone else besides expert witnesses, and that the documents be destroyed when the case is over.
As for the records requested from police, according to Klesch, because of the occupations of those involved, the information being sought will be of a sensitive nature and not involve people involved in the case.
Klesch wrote that the protections being sought will not interfere with Reilly’s ability to pursue the case.
“Without seeing them, the Plaintiff does not know what is in them but obviously it must be bad for the Defendants or they would not refuse to produce them,” wrote Patrick Winburn, of Winburn Law, in a response to the motion. “Apparently the Defendant’s worry is that they will be revealed to the Bennington Banner. Plaintiff has already repeatedly advised the Defendants that the necessity of these records is for litigation purposes and not for the Bennington Banner.”
Winburn wrote that if the records are “as bad as they sound,” they will be the subject of open court proceedings at a trial. He called the motion for the order “futile” and said it will only lead to more unnecessary motion filings.
“The school may be used to declaring things to be a secret, go into executive session and otherwise assert privileges that it may or may not be entitled to in order to keep uncomfortable facts from being known to the public, but this is not that type of proceeding,” wrote Windburn.
Winburn said, as for the police records, it’s the school district through its attorney that subpoenaed them. “Now they want to keep some of the records that they subpoenaed from the Police a secret,” he wrote.
Winburn noted that at this state in the litigation, it’s not possible to say what records may ultimately be relevant and asked the court deny the motion.
