Skip to content

Explanation of Approach to Lawsuit Against Findlay City Schools

Background and Motivation

After receiving an unsatisfactory response (1) from Findlay City Schools (FCS) to our letter (2), despite glaring factual inaccuracies, and facing what appeared to be obstruction in obtaining requested information through a public information request, Eakin filed a lawsuit in May 2024. The goal was to compel FCS to produce the requested documents.

Strategic Approach

Eakin's methodology in approaching the lawsuit was deliberately designed to mirror FCS's approach when presented with factual inaccuracies in their own investigation report. This strategy was intended to highlight the double standard in how accuracy and credibility were being treated.

Initial Filing and Response

  1. Eakin filed the initial lawsuit pro se (representing himself without a lawyer).
  2. FCS's lawyers responded with a motion to dismiss, citing tech inaccuracies in Eakin's original filing.
  3. Eakin, aware that his non-professional legal filing might contain imperfections, chose not to correct these issues.

Mirroring FCS's Approach

Instead of modifying or updating the lawsuit to address the cited inaccuracies, Eakin deliberately chose to maintain his original filing. This decision was made to parallel FCS's own stance of supporting their investigation report despite its flaws. Eakin insisted that the issues raised were merely technical, not factual, mirroring the school district's defense of their own report.

Notable Observations

  1. FCS's motion to dismiss did not deny or dispute any of Eakin's accusations regarding obstruction, stonewalling, or speculated motivations.
  2. The focus of FCS's response was solely on procedural flaws in Eakin's suit, not on the substance of his claims.

Outcome and Implications

  1. The court granted the motion to dismiss based on the technical inaccuracies in Eakin's filing.
  2. The threshold for dismissing the lawsuit was lower than the level severities within the FCS's FFE investigation report.
  3. This outcome suggests that if Eakin's suit was deemed insufficient on technical grounds, the FFE investigation report, with its factual inaccuracies, would undoubtedly not stand up to scrutiny either.