Judge Andrew E. Cooper, Case Number: 24CHCV02006, Date: 2025-03-20 Tentative Ruling

Counsel wishing to submit on a tentative ruling may inform the clerk or courtroom assisant in North Valley Department F51, 9425 Penfield Ave., Chatsworth, CA 91311, at (818) 407-2251. Please be aware that unless all parties submit, the matter will still be called for hearing and may be argued by any appearing/non-submitting parties. If the matter is submitted on the court's tentative ruling by all parties, counsel for moving party shall give notice of ruling. This may be done by incorporating verbatim the court's tentative ruling. The tentative ruling may be extracted verbatim by copying and specially pasting, as unformatted text, from the Los Angeles Superior Court’s website, http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org. All hearings on law and motion and other calendar matters are generally NOT transcribed by a court reporter unless one is provided by the party(ies).

MARCH 19, 2025

(Special Interrogatories, Requests for Admission, and

Requests for Production of Documents, Set One)

Los Angeles Superior Court Case # 24CHCV02006

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant William S. Hart Union High School District (“Defendant”)

RELIEF REQUESTED: Orders compelling Defendant’s further responses, within 15 days, to the following discovery requests:

· Plaintiff’s Requests for Admission (“RFAs”), Set One, Nos. 4 and 19; and

· Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of Documents (“RFPs”), Set One, Nos. 27–28 and 55.

Plaintiff also seeks an order from this court that any confidential information disclosed or produced in the course of this litigation that contains the identifying information of a minor be subject to a protective order between the parties and be held as confidential by the Court.

TENTATIVE RULING: The unopposed motions are granted. Defendant to provide further responses to the subject discovery requests within 30 days.

Plaintiff brings this action against Defendant, the school district overseeing the high school she attends, alleging that on 3/14/24, she was in the school yard when she was violently attacked by another student. (Compl. ¶ 9.) On 5/28/24, Plaintiff filed her complaint, alleging against Defendant the following causes of action: (1) Negligence; and (2) Dangerous Condition of Public Property. On 7/12/24, Defendant filed its answer.

On 7/15/24, Plaintiff served her first set of discovery requests on Defendant. (Decl. of Hadi Alshekh ¶ 4.) On 10/31/24, Defendant served its responses thereto. (Id. at ¶ 5.)

On 12/13/24, Plaintiff filed the instant motions to compel further responses to the subject discovery requests. No oppositions have been filed to date.

Here, Plaintiff seeks to compel Defendant’s additional responses the subject discovery requests, arguing that Defendant’s responses are code-deficient and its objections without merit.

A motion to compel further discovery responses must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration stating “facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion.” (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.300, subd. (b)(1); 2031.310, subd. (b)(2); 2033.290, subd. (b)(1); 2016.040.)

Here, Defendant’s counsel declares that on 11/14/24, he sent Plaintiff’s counsel a meet-and-confer letter raising the issues discussed herein, and Defendant’s counsel stated that he would not oppose the motions. (Alshekh Decl. ¶ 6.)

“The party to whom interrogatories have been propounded shall respond in writing under oath separately to each interrogatory by any of the following: (1) An answer containing the information sought to be discovered; (2) An exercise of the party’s option to produce writings; or (3) An objection to the particular interrogatory.” (Code Civ Proc. § 2030.210, subd. (a).)

A propounding party may move for an order compelling further responses to interrogatories if any of the following apply: “(1) An answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete; (2) An exercise of the option to produce documents under Section 2030.230 is unwarranted or the required specification of those documents is inadequate; or (3) An objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.300, subd. (a).)

Here, Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories Nos. 15, 20, and 33–35 seek, inter alia, medical records, prior violent incidents on campus, and preventative measures. (Pl.’s SPROG Sep. Stmt.) In response, Defendant asserted objections based on overbreadth and Education Code Section 49076, which provides that “a school district shall not permit access to pupil records to a person without written parental consent or under judicial order.” (Ed. Code § 49076, subd. (a).)

The parties appear to agree that the requested answers will be provided upon Court order, as Defendant has chosen not to oppose the instant motions. Accordingly, the Court grants Plaintiff’s unopposed motion to compel Defendant’s further responses to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories Nos. 15, 20, and 33–35.

California law requires a responding party to respond to each propounded request for admission with either a substantive answer or an objection to the particular request. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2033.210, subd. (b).) Each substantive answer must: “(1)¿Admit so much of the matter involved in the request as is true, either as expressed in the request itself or as reasonably and clearly qualified by the responding party; (2)¿Deny so much of the matter involved in the request as is untrue; (3)¿Specify so much of the matter involved in the request as to the truth of which the responding party lacks sufficient information or knowledge.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.220, subd. (b).)

A propounding party may move for an order compelling further responses to requests for admission if any of the following apply: “(1) An answer to a particular request is evasive or incomplete; or (2) An objection to a particular request is without merit or too general.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.290, subd. (a).)

Here, Plaintiff’s RFA Nos. 4 and 19 seek Defendant to admit its knowledge and disciplinary history with the student perpetrator of the incident. (Pl.’s RFA Sep. Stmt.) In response, Defendant asserted objections based on Education Code Section 49076. Based on the foregoing, as with Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories, the Court grants Plaintiff’s unopposed motion to compel Defendant’s further responses to Plaintiff’s RFA Nos. 4 and 19.

California law requires a responding party to respond to each request for production of documents with either a statement of compliance, a representation that the party lacks the ability to comply, or an objection to the demand. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.210, subd. (a).) A propounding party may move for an order compelling further response to a discovery request if it decides that “an objection in the response is without merit or too general.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.310, subd. (a).)

Here, Plaintiff’s RFP Nos. 27–28 and 55 seek the production of communications between Defendant and the student perpetrator’s parent, employee policies and procedures, and student disciplinary records. (Pl.’s RFP Sep. Stmt.) In response, Defendant asserted objections based on Education Code Section 49076 and overbreadth.

Plaintiff argues that “here, good cause exists for the Court to compel Defendant’s further responses because the documents sought by Plaintiff are relevant to his underlying action. This Negligence and Dangerous Condition of Public Property action took place at Plaintiff’s high school. Plaintiff is asking for documents related to communications between Defendant and the student perpetrator and/or the student perpetrator’ parents regarding the incident; Defendant’s policies and procedures regarding what its employees are supposed to do after receiving notice that one of its students is injured while at the subject high school; and disciplinary documents for all students involved in the subject incident. These documents are all relevant to Plaintiff’s claims.” (Pl.’s RFP Mot. 7:4–11.)

Plaintiff further asserts that she “is willing to enter into a stipulated protective order with Defendant in order to protect the confidentiality of the documents protected under the Education Code and also to facilitate the parties’ effort to litigate the subject matter and hopefully resolve it.” (Id. at 7:18–21.) Based on the foregoing, as with Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories, the Court grants Plaintiff’s unopposed motion to compel Defendant’s further responses to Plaintiff’s RFP Nos. 27–28 and 55. Any claimed private or confidential student information may be adequately protected by the terms of a protective order.

The unopposed motions are granted. Defendant to provide further responses to the subject discovery requests within 30 days.