Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 412 Filed 10/01/20 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
CASSANDRA BERRY, ET AL.

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO. 10-4049

JOHN WHITE, ET AL.

SECTION A(4)

MINUTE ENTRY (JS-10: 60)
On October 1, 2020, the Court held a status conference by telephone with the
following counsel in attendance: Neil Ranu, Lauren Winkler, Sophia Mire Hill; Susan Fijman
(Litigation Paralegal) for Plaintiffs; Maree Sneed, Joan Ellen Hunt, Chris Fruge, and Parris
Taylor for the LDOE; Wayne Stewart for Orleans Parish School Board. Independent
Monitors (“IMs”) Dale Bailey and William Swindol also participated. The Court scheduled the
conference call at the request of Defendants.
Defendants discussed the steps that they are taking to ensure that the needs of
special needs students are being met during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Defendants also brought to the Court’s attention that they anticipate achieving
substantial compliance with their obligations under the Consent Judgment for a fourth year,
which exceeds the time requirement imposed by the Consent Judgment . Defendants
therefore are interested in an exit strategy so that this matter can be concluded and the
Consent Judgment terminated.
The Court discussed its concerns with reactive versus proactive compliance over the
last few years. As part of any motion to terminate the Consent Judgment, Defendants must
include assurances acceptable to the Court as to what steps will be taken to ensure that the
positive changes effected by the Consent Judgment remain in place going forward. The

1

 Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 412 Filed 10/01/20 Page 2 of 2

plan of action going forward must be included as part of any motion to terminate the
Consent Judgment.
Plaintiffs suggested that prior to Defendants filing a motion to terminate, the parties
meet (whether in person, virtually, or telephonically) and reach some common ground on
how proactivity versus reactivity can be achieved. The Court found this to be an excellent
suggestion and therefore made it an order of the Court. Defendants suggested that
Plaintiffs provide some suggestions for their view of what having solid, strong, internal
monitoring in place would look like, and that they do so prior to meeting with the other
parties. The Court found this to be an excellent suggestion and therefore made it an order
of the Court. Counsel for the parties will determine what role the IMs will play and whether
the IMs should participate in the meeting.
The Court thanks counsel and the Independent Monitors for their continued
cooperation.
* * * * * * * *

2