Snowling v. Massanutten Military Academy

Virginia Circuit Court

Snowling v. Massanutten Military Academy

57 Va. Cir. 284, 2002 Va. Cir. LEXIS 3

CourtVirginia Circuit Court

DecidedJanuary 17, 2002

DocketCase No. (Law) CL98-23

StatusPublished

This text of 57 Va. Cir. 284 (Snowling v. Massanutten Military Academy) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Virginia Circuit Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Snowling v. Massanutten Military Academy, 57 Va. Cir. 284, 2002 Va. Cir. LEXIS 3 (Va. Super. Ct. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

By judge Dennis lee Hupp

This is an action at law to recover monies paid by the Plaintiffs to the Defendant for their son’s tuition, room, and board. Plaintiffs’ son was expelled from the Academy rather early in the school year. Plaintiffs’ counsel wants to contact informally four former employees of the Defendant who are witnesses to the facts and circumstances forming the basis for the discharge of the student. Indeed, they were witnesses in the school’s administrative proceeding wherein the decision to expel was made. The Defendant objects to the ex parte contact, insisting that access to these former employees be obtained through formal discovery procedures only.

I will allow the Plaintiff to contact ex parte the former employees of the Defendant who were named at our hearing on January 3, 2002. Such contact is ethically permitted under Legal Ethics Opinion No. 1670. These persons are no longer employees of the Defendant, and I do not believe thattiiey were part of the “control group” when they were employed by MMA.

I have reviewed the opinion of the Honorable John E. Wetsel, Jr., Judge of the Twenty-Sixth Judicial Circuit, in Dupont v. Winchester Medical Center, 34 Va. Cir. 105 (Winchester, 1994). While I do not disagree with Judge Wetsel’s reasoning, there is, in my view, an important difference between the situation presented there and the one at hand. That distinction lies in the employment status of the persons with whom the Plaintiff seeks contact. In our case, these persons are no longer employed by the Defendant.

I realize this ruling puts me at odds with Magistrate Judge Sargent in Armsey v. Medshares Management Services, 184 F.R.D. 569 (W.D. Va. [285]*2851998); however, I find myself in agreement with the opinions handed down in those several cases cited in Armsey where ex parte contact with former non-managerial employees was allowed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

By judge Dennis lee Hupp

This is an action at law to recover monies paid by the Plaintiffs to the Defendant for their son’s tuition, room, and board. Plaintiffs’ son was expelled from the Academy rather early in the school year. Plaintiffs’ counsel wants to contact informally four former employees of the Defendant who are witnesses to the facts and circumstances forming the basis for the discharge of the student. Indeed, they were witnesses in the school’s administrative proceeding wherein the decision to expel was made. The Defendant objects to the ex parte contact, insisting that access to these former employees be obtained through formal discovery procedures only.

I will allow the Plaintiff to contact ex parte the former employees of the Defendant who were named at our hearing on January 3, 2002. Such contact is ethically permitted under Legal Ethics Opinion No. 1670. These persons are no longer employees of the Defendant, and I do not believe thattiiey were part of the “control group” when they were employed by MMA.

I have reviewed the opinion of the Honorable John E. Wetsel, Jr., Judge of the Twenty-Sixth Judicial Circuit, in Dupont v. Winchester Medical Center, 34 Va. Cir. 105 (Winchester, 1994). While I do not disagree with Judge Wetsel’s reasoning, there is, in my view, an important difference between the situation presented there and the one at hand. That distinction lies in the employment status of the persons with whom the Plaintiff seeks contact. In our case, these persons are no longer employed by the Defendant.

I realize this ruling puts me at odds with Magistrate Judge Sargent in Armsey v. Medshares Management Services, 184 F.R.D. 569 (W.D. Va. [285]*2851998); however, I find myself in agreement with the opinions handed down in those several cases cited in Armsey where ex parte contact with former non-managerial employees was allowed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

57 Va. Cir. 284, 2002 Va. Cir. LEXIS 3, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/snowling-v-massanutten-military-academy-vacc-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack