UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. MAINE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	No. 1:25-cv-00173-SDN
)
MAINE DEPARTMENT OF 	)
EDUCATION, 	)
)
Defendant. 	)
ORDER ON MOTIONS TO QUASH
In this case, the federal Government is suing the Maine Department of
Education (MDOE) on claims that Maine is violating Title IX by allowing transgender
athletes to compete in girls’ sports. 	The Government has served a third-party
subpoena on the Maine Principals’ Association (MPA), the governing body for
interscholastic youth sports in Maine. See Subpoena (ECF No. 28-1). The MPA and
intervenor Portland Public Schools (PPS) move to quash the subpoena on the grounds
that the information sought is irrelevant, disproportionate and burdensome, and
protected under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA). See MPA
Motion (ECF No. 28); PPS Motion (ECF No. 59).1 For the reasons that follow, I grant
the motions to quash in part and deny them in part.
1 GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) also filed an amicus brief in support of the MPA’s
motion to quash. See ECF No. 41.
Case 1:25-cv-00173-SDN Document 83 Filed 03/31/26 Page 1 of 10 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
I. Legal Standard
“Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is
relevant to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case,
considering,” among other things, “whether the burden or expense of the proposed
discovery outweighs its likely benefit.” 	Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1); see also FEDEQ
DV004, LLC v. City of Portland, No. 2:21-cv-00327-GZS, 2022 WL 17082083, at *3
(D. Me. Nov. 18, 2022) (“A subpoena served on a third party . . . is subject to the same
standards as to relevance and proportionality governing discovery between the
parties.”). 	Along those lines, a court “must quash or modify a subpoena that . . .
requires disclosure of privileged or other protected matters . . . or . . . subjects a person
to an undue burden.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(3)(A). An entity “claiming undue burden
bears the burden of proving that proposition.” In re W. Me. Acct. Servs., LLC,
No. 2:22-mc-00081-KFW, 2022 WL 2604597, at *1 (D. Me. July 7, 2022).
II. Discussion
A. Preliminary Matters
I begin my analysis by addressing a few preliminary matters.
First, the MPA asserts that the information the Government seeks in its
subpoena 	is 	broadly 	irrelevant 	because 	this 	case 	turns 	on 	a 	purely 	legal
interpretation of Title IX. See MPA Motion at 4-5. The Government and the MDOE,
however, agreed at oral argument that there may be factual disputes in this case
relating to potential damages and the question of whether Maine’s policy puts
cisgender girls at a competitive disadvantage. 	Accordingly, I accept that the
Case 1:25-cv-00173-SDN Document 83 Filed 03/31/26 Page 2 of 10 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
information the Government seeks is broadly relevant to its claims.
Second, the MPA asserts that, as a nonparty to this litigation, it is entitled to
heightened protections against burdensome discovery requests. 	See MPA Reply
(ECF No. 37) at 3; Cusumano v. Microsoft Corp., 162 F.3d 708, 717 (1st Cir. 1998)
(“Concern for the unwanted burden thrust upon non-parties is a factor entitled to
special weight in evaluating the balance of competing needs.”). While I will certainly
assess 	the 	burdensomeness 	of 	the 	Government’s 	subpoena, 	I 	decline 	to 	apply
heightened protections where the MPA “is not a typical disinterested” third-party
given that it is the entity tasked with governing youth interscholastic sports in
Maine. 	Culliver v. Ctr. for Toxicology & Envt’l Health LLC, No. 3:22-mc-00006,
2022 WL 475185, at *6 (N.D. Fla. Feb. 16, 2022).
Finally, through the course of briefing and oral argument, the MPA (without
any objection by PPS) has agreed to respond to several of the requests for documents
in the Government’s subpoena, leaving only Requests 4-9, 11, and 18-19 in dispute.2
I will now address those requests and the parties’ arguments in turn.
B. Request 4: Athletic Rosters
In Request 4 of its subpoena, the Government seeks “all interscholastic athletic
rosters for schools, including names, school, and grade . . . maintained or received by
2 The MPA also argues that various other requests should be quashed to the extent they seek
attorney-client privileged information. I decline to do so because the Government’s subpoena explicitly
exempts privileged documents. See ECF No. 28-1 at 11. And, in any event, the MPA remains free to
withhold documents based on a valid privilege even in the absence of a court order. 	See Fed. R.
Civ. P. 45(e)(2).
Case 1:25-cv-00173-SDN Document 83 Filed 03/31/26 Page 3 of 10 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
the 	MPA 	from 	the 	2023-2024 	and 	2024-2025 	school 	years 	showing 	student
participation disaggregated by sport and sex.” Subpoena at 8.
The MPA objects to this request on the basis that it is overbroad because it
seeks the production of “rosters containing personally identifiable information of
students, 	many 	of 	whom 	are 	unrelated 	to 	the 	underlying 	controversy” 	and
burdensome because “it would require” sorting records “from schools across the entire
state.” 	Reply at 4-5. The MPA also notes that it only maintains “post-season
tournament rosters.” 	Id. at 5. PPS argues that the request must be quashed on the
basis that the information sought “plainly constitute[s]” confidential student records.
PPS Motion at 2.
While I am unsure exactly what the Government hopes to glean from the
rosters, I accept that the rosters are broadly relevant and find that the MPA’s and
PPS’s concerns are overstated. 	There is nothing sensitive about athletic rosters—
indeed, many such rosters are publicly available on the MPA’s website right now—
and they fall within the directory exception to FERPA. 	See 20 U.S.C. § 1232g(b)(1)
(“No funds shall be made available under any applicable program to any educational
agency or institution which has a policy or practice of permitting the release of
education records (or personally identifiable information contained therein other than
directory information . . .) of students without the written consent of their parents
. . . . (emphasis added)); id. § 1232g(a)(5)(A)(defining “directory information” as “the
student’s name, address, telephone listing, date and place of birth, major field of
study, participation in officially recognized activities and sports, weight and height
Case 1:25-cv-00173-SDN Document 83 Filed 03/31/26 Page 4 of 10 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
of members of athletic teams, dates of attendance, degrees and awards received, and
the most recent previous educational agency or institution attended by the student”).
The MPA has also failed to show with the requisite level of specificity the
“manner and extent of the burden” of complying with the Government’s request to
produce 	the 	rosters, 	Strike 	3 	Holdings, 	LLC 	v. 	Doe, 	No. 	25-cv-11552-ADB,
2025 WL 2323608, at *1 (D. Mass. Aug. 12, 2025), saying only that doing so would be
“resource-intensive, time-consuming,” and would “place a significant financial and
operational burden” on it, MPA Reply at 4. 	These vague asseverations do not
convince me that it would be unduly burdensome for the MPA to produce whatever
rosters it maintains for the relevant time periods, particularly where it is evident
from its website that it maintains the rosters in an electronic format.
Because they have not shown an undue burden, the MPA’s and PPS’s motions
to quash are denied with respect to Request 4.
C. Requests 5-6 and 8-9: Lists of Transgender Student Athletes
In Requests 5-6 and 8-9 of its subpoena, the Government seeks “lists of all
known” transgender athletes—or alternatively, information from which such a list
could be created—and the results of events in which those athletes participated.
Subpoena at 8-9.
The MPA represents that it does not maintain a list of transgender athletes.
See MPA Reply at 6. It further elaborated at oral argument that the only records it
possesses relate to individual requests by transgender athletes to participate in
sports aligning with their gender identities prior to the 2022 policy change allowing
Case 1:25-cv-00173-SDN Document 83 Filed 03/31/26 Page 5 of 10 PageID #:
<pageID>

6
such participation as a matter of course. Those records, according to the MPA, consist
of highly personal biographical details and sensitive healthcare records that it used
to assess transgender athletes’ particular circumstances.
While I accept that these individual records might have some relevance to the
Government’s claims, I find that the MPA and PPS have shown that the burden of
producing such sensitive records outweighs any likely benefit. 	See, e.g., Johnson v.
Nyack Hosp., 169 F.R.D. 550, 562 (S.D.N.Y. 1996) (noting that a court’s power to limit
discovery under Rule 26(b)(2) “may be employed where the burden is not measured
in the time or expense required to respond to requested discovery[] but lies instead
in the adverse consequences of the disclosure of sensitive . . . material”). Indeed, the
Government itself disclaimed any interest in healthcare records at oral argument,
and, even if some of the records in question are not explicitly healthcare records, there
is good reason to be cautious in requiring the disclosure of the names of individual
transgender 	athletes 	and 	their 	personal 	details 	where, 	as 	other 	courts 	have
recognized, this “Administration has been explicit about its disapproval of the
transgender 	community.” 	In 	re 	Admin. 	Subpoena 	No. 	25-1431-019,
800 F. Supp. 3d 229, 239 (D. Mass. 2025), appeal docketed, No. 26-1093 (1st Cir.
Jan. 30, 2026). 	Moreover, other less sensitive information (as discussed below) is
available to the Government to explore the issue of competitive advantages.
Accordingly, the MPA’s and PPS’s motions to quash are granted as to Requests
5-6 and 8-9.
Case 1:25-cv-00173-SDN Document 83 Filed 03/31/26 Page 6 of 10 PageID #:
<pageID>

7
D. Request 7: Results for Specific Student Athletes
In Request 7 of its subpoena, the Government seeks “documents showing the
results of athletic events, including any ranking statistics,” for three specific student
athletes. 	Subpoena at 9. 	The MPA responds that the “[i]nformation responsive to
this request is maintained by a third party and is publicly available to the”
Government. 	See MPA Reply at 6. 	PPS, for its part, maintains the information
sought is confidential. See PPS Motion at 2.
Given that the MPA is only obligated to produce information it actually
possesses, I find no basis to quash the subpoena in its representation that the
information is maintained by a third party. Similarly, the fact that the information
may be available publicly does not moot the Government’s request. 	See Whale
Capital, 	L.P. 	v. 	Ridgeway, 	No. 	22-2570, 	2023 	WL 	7220560, 	at 	*7 	(E.D. 	La.
Nov. 2, 2023) (“The mere fact that responsive information is publicly available does
not prevent its discovery. . . . Absent a proportionality objection, . . . a responding
party must produce even publicly available information that it has in its actual or
constructive possession, custody or control.”).
With regard to PPS’s concerns about confidentiality, athletic results fall within
the directory information exception to FERPA as discussed above. 	See 20 U.S.C.
§ 1232g(b)(1), 	(a)(5)(A). 	Moreover, 	the 	results 	are 	concededly 	already 	public
information. And, were that not enough, the Government has agreed not to publicly
identify any students in its filings in this case.
Case 1:25-cv-00173-SDN Document 83 Filed 03/31/26 Page 7 of 10 PageID #:
<pageID>

8
For these reasons, the MPA’s and PPS’s motions to quash are denied as to
Request 7.
E. Request 11: Meeting Minutes & Transcripts
In Request 11 of its subpoena, the Government seeks “all meeting minutes and
any transcripts or recordings for the MPA’s Gender Identity Equity Committee.”
Subpoena at 9. The MPA represented at oral argument that no such committee ever
existed, and that the meetings in question related to the same pre-2022 requests by
individual transgender athletes discussed above. 	That being the case, for the same
reasons outlined above, I find that the MPA and PPS have met their burden to show
that the production of these meeting minutes, which presumably discuss the same
sensitive information, outweighs any likely benefit. 	As such, the MPA’s and PPS’s
motions to quash are granted as to Request 11.
F. Requests 18-19: Communications About Transgender Athletes
In Requests 18-19 of its subpoena, the Government seeks “all complaints,
concerns, praise, or reports received by the MPA from school districts, parents,
students, 	educators, 	or 	community 	members 	regarding 	transgender 	student
participation in sex-segregated sports or use of sex-specific athletic facilities,” as well
as the MPA’s responses to those communications. Subpoena at 10.
There is no real dispute that such communications are relevant to the
Government’s claims. 	But the MPA raises concerns about the sensitivity of the
information, and PPS likewise raises FERPA-related privacy concerns. 	See MPA
Reply at 4, 9; PPS Motion at 2. The MPA also argues that responding to this request
Case 1:25-cv-00173-SDN Document 83 Filed 03/31/26 Page 8 of 10 PageID #:
<pageID>

9
would 	be 	unduly 	burdensome 	and 	require 	it 	to 	produce 	“thousands” 	of
communications. MPA Reply at 9.
To assuage the MPA’s and PPS’s legitimate privacy concerns (as discussed in
more 	detail 	above), 	I 	will 	modify 	the 	Government’s 	subpoena 	to 	require 	the
production of these documents redacted of any personally identifying information
(names and identifying details of students, parents, staff, volunteers, teams, schools,
etc.). 	See, 	e.g., 	Wright 	v. 	Capella 	Educ. 	Co., 	No. 	18-cv-1062 	(WMW/ECW),
2020 WL 6285220, at *14 (D. Minn. Oct. 27, 2020) (holding that “the redaction of the
personal identifying information from” the documents at issue “would eliminate . . .
FERPA concerns”).3 At oral argument, the Government explained that it needs this
information to explore the extent of the MDOE’s and the MPA’s awareness of
concerns about safety and competitive advantage in girls’ sports, which it can still do
without sensitive personally identifying information.
With regard to the MPA’s burdensomeness argument, it has, once again, not
carried its burden to show with specificity that responding to this request would be
unduly 	burdensome. 	It 	should 	be 	relatively 	easy 	to 	retrieve 	responsive
communications with some well-tailored electronic search terms, and the time and
effort required to redact an unspecified number of “thousands” of communications is
not so extraordinary as to convince me that it would be unfair to require the MPA to
3 I am merely citing this case in response to PPS’s FERPA concerns. 	To be clear, I find redaction
appropriate based on more general privacy concerns. Accordingly, I need not resolve whether FERPA
permits the release of this information to the Government, as it argues.
Case 1:25-cv-00173-SDN Document 83 Filed 03/31/26 Page 9 of 10 PageID #:
<pageID>

10
do so, considering its role in the underlying controversy and the Government’s need
for the information.
Accordingly, 	the 	Government’s 	Requests 	18-19 	are 	modified 	to 	require
production 	of 	the 	communications 	redacted 	of 	any 	personally 	identifiable
information. 	With those modifications, the MPA’s and PPS’s motions to quash are
denied as to Requests 18-19.
III. Conclusion
For 	the 	foregoing 	reasons, 	the 	MPA’s 	and 	PPS’s 	motions 	to 	quash 	the
Government’s subpoena are GRANTED IN PART as to Requests 5-6, 8-9, and 11,
and DENIED IN PART as to the remaining requests, as modified herein.
SO ORDERED.
NOTICE
In accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a), a party may
serve and file an objection to this order within fourteen (14) days after being
served with a copy thereof.
Failure to file a timely objection shall constitute a waiver of the right
to review by the District Court and to any further appeal of this order.
Dated: March 31, 2026
/s/ Karen Frink Wolf
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 1:25-cv-00173-SDN Document 83 Filed 03/31/26 Page 10 of 10 PageID #:
<pageID>