Judge Armen Tamzarian, Case Number: 22STCV13174, Date: 2023-10-03 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Armen Tamzarian, Case: 22STCV13174, Date: 2023-10-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV13174 Hearing Date: October 3, 2023 Dept: 52

Defendant David Lee Scott’s Motion for Protective Order

Defendant David Lee Scott moves for a protective order prohibiting public disclosure of personnel records from his former employers, co-defendants Los Angeles Unified School District and CATCH Prep High School, Inc. “The court, for good cause shown, may make any order that justice requires to protect any party or other person from unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression, or undue burden and expense.” (CCP § 2031.060(b).)

Scott objects to public disclosure—not discovery by plaintiff—of his personnel records based on his right to privacy. “The party asserting a privacy right must establish a legally protected privacy interest, an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in the given circumstances, and a threatened intrusion that is serious.” (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 552 (Williams).) If the objecting party shows all three elements, then the court must balance the need for disclosure against the right to privacy. (Ibid.) “[T]he party seeking protection may identify feasible alternatives that serve the same interests or protective measures that would diminish the loss of privacy.” (Ibid.)

Scott establishes a legally protected privacy interest. “The state Constitution expressly grants Californians a right of privacy. [Citation.] Protection of informational privacy is the provision’s central concern.” (Williams, supra, 3 Cal.5th at p. 552.) People have a right to privacy in their personnel files and other employment records. (Board of Trustees v. Superior Court (1981) 119 Cal.App.3d 516, 528-530.) Scott also shows an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in the circumstances. Employees generally expect that their personnel files are confidential and open only to themselves and their employers.

Publicly disclosing these records would constitute a serious threatened intrusion. Plaintiff opposes this motion, which seeks the limited relief of prohibiting public disclosure rather than prohibiting discovery, and therefore threatens to disclose Scott’s confidential personnel records to the world.

The protective order Scott seeks is a feasible alternative to full and unlimited disclosure of the records. Plaintiff will suffer no prejudice. She will get all the information she needs to pursue this action. Limiting her from publicly disclosing the records is a reasonable and moderate step to mitigate the intrusion into defendant Scott’s privacy.

Plaintiff also argues Code of Civil Procedure section 1002 prohibits protective orders in cases like this one. It does not. The statute only applies to limit confidentiality provisions in some settlement agreements. Section 1002, subdivision (a) provides, “[A] provision within a settlement agreement that prevents the disclosure of factual information related to the action is prohibited in any civil action the factual foundation for which establishes a cause of action for civil damages for” childhood sexual assault and other related claims. A protective order is not a settlement agreement. Section 1002 does not apply.

Sanctions

Defendant moves for monetary sanctions against plaintiff and her counsel. A court must impose monetary sanctions against one “who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion for a protective order, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (CCP § 2019.030(c).)

Plaintiff acted with substantial justification. Though plaintiff’s opposition was unsuccessful, she made reasonable arguments based on the public policy in favor of the public’s right to access information. (See Westinghouse Electric Corp. v. Newman & Holtzinger (1995) 39 Cal.App.4th 1194, 1208.)

Disposition

Defendant David Lee Scott’s motion for protective order is granted. The court hereby orders the parties to execute the stipulated protective order attached as exhibit A to the declaration of Jeanne L. Zimmer in support of this motion within 15 days.

Plaintiff Jane C.R. Doe’s Motion to Compel Defendant CATCH Prep Charter High School’s Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents

Plaintiff Jane C.R. Doe moves to compel defendant CATCH Prep Charter High School, Inc. (CATCH) to serve further responses to request for production of documents Nos. 1, 2, 8, and 11-18. A party propounding requests for production may move to compel further responses if “[a] statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete,” “[a] representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive,” or “[a]n objection in the response is without merit or too general.” (CCP § 2031.310(a).)

CATCH objected to the subject requests for production on several grounds, including co-defendant David Lee Scott’s privacy rights. CATCH’s responses state, “Mr. Scott objected to the release of his private information absent a protective order in this matter and has filed or plans to file a Motion for a protective order. Defendant will respond following resolution of Mr. Scott’s objection.” In its opposition, defendant asserts, “If the Court rules that a Protective Order is appropriate, then CATCH will produce the relevant documents subject to that Protective Order.” (Opp., p. 6.)

Defendant Scott moved for a protective order to limit public disclosure of these records. The court will grant Scott’s motion and require plaintiff to enter a protective order to maintain the confidentiality of the records CATCH produces. Given the deadline imposed on the requesting party under Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310(c), the court finds it appropriate to order CATCH to provide further verified responses and to produce responsive documents subject to the protective order.

Disposition

Plaintiff Jane C.R. Doe’s motion to compel defendant CATCH Prep Charter High School, Inc. to serve further responses to request for production of documents Nos. 1, 2, 8, and 11-18 is granted in part. Defendant CATCH Prep Charter High School, Inc. is ordered to serve further verified responses to requests for production Nos. 1, 2, 8, and 11-18 within 30 days. Subject to the protective order, defendant CATCH Prep Charter High School, Inc. shall produce any responsive documents concurrently with its further written responses.

Plaintiff Jane C.R. Doe’s Notice of Related Case

Plaintiff Jane C.R. Doe filed a notice of related case seeking to relate this action to Jane M.R. Doe v. CATCH Prep Charter High School, Inc., et al., No. 23STCV14304.

The cases are related under California Rules of Court, rule 3.300(a). Both cases include two common defendants: CATCH Prep Charter High School, Inc. and David Lee Scott. Both cases arise from allegations that Scott sexually assaulted students while he was an employee at CATCH between 2004 and 2006. In both cases, plaintiff alleges CATCH negligently hired, retained, and supervised Scott. Both cases will therefore require determining substantially identical questions of law and fact on whether CATCH knew about the danger Scott allegedly posed to children and, if so, whether CATCH took adequate measures to protect students from that danger.

The court finds the cases are related. Jane M.R. Doe v. CATCH Prep Charter High School, Inc., et al., No. 23STCV14304, is hereby reassigned to Judge Armen Tamzarian in Department 52 at Stanley Mosk Courthouse for all purposes.