Judge: Ashfaq G. Chowdhury, Case: 23GDCV00433, Date: 2024-02-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23GDCV00433    Hearing Date: February 16, 2024    Dept: E

Hearing Date: 2/16/2024 – 8:30am
Case No: 23GDCV00433
Trial Date: 2/18/2025
Case Name: JANE DOE 1, et al. v. FIRST STUDENT, INC., et al.

TENTATIVE RULING ON MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH SUBPOENA ISSUED TO GLENDALE POLICE DEPARTMENT

RELIEF REQUESTED
Plaintiffs Jane Doe 1, an individual, by and through her guardian ad litem R.G. and Jane Doe 2, an individual, by and through her guardian ad litem V.V. (“Plaintiffs”) move for order compelling Glendale Police Department (“GPD”) to comply with a subpoena issued by Plaintiffs related to its investigation of Defendant Denis Wilson Alcazar (“Alcazar”) for sexually abusing minors, including all reports, audio and/or video recordings, and evidence in its possession. Plaintiffs request that the Court order GPD to submit all documents and evidence responsive to Plaintiffs’ subpoena for an in camera review and determination as to what documents should be produced. (Motion, 3:19-25.)

This motion is made pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §§ 1987.1, 2017.010, and 2025.480.  

Procedural

Moving Party: Plaintiffs Jane Doe 1, an individual, by and through her guardian ad litem R.G. and Jane Doe 2, an individual, by and through her guardian ad litem V.V.
Responding Party: Unopposed

Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC Rule 3.1300): Ok
16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP 1005(b)): Ok
Proper Address (CCP §1013, §1013a, §1013b): Ok

Moving Papers: Notice/Motion

Opposition Papers: Unopposed

BACKGROUND

On March 3, 2023, Plaintiffs Jane Doe 1, an individual, by and through her guardian ad litem, R.G. and Jane Doe 2, an individual, by and through her guardian ad litem, V.V. (collectively “Plaintiffs”) filed a Complaint against Defendants First Student, Inc. (“First Student”), Denis Wilson Alcazar (“Alcazar”) (collectively “Defendants”) and DOES 1 through 60, alleging causes of action for (1) sexual abuse of a minor, (2) intentional infliction of emotional distress, (3) sexual harassment, (4) negligent hiring, supervision, and retention of an unfit employee, (5) negligent supervision of a minor, and (6) negligence. Plaintiffs allege that Defendant Alcazar was their bus driver and sexually abused Plaintiffs on numerous occasions. (Complaint, ¶¶ 10-11.)

On March 6, 2023, the Court granted R.G.’s application to be appointed as guardian ad litem for Jane Doe 1. Also, on such date, the Court granted V.V.’s application to be appointed as guardian ad litem for Jane Doe 2.

On April 28, 2023, Defendants filed respective Answers to the Complaint.

On January 22, 2024, Plaintiffs filed and served the instant motion to compel the Glendale Police Department (“GPD”) to comply with a subpoena issued by Plaintiffs related to its investigation of Defendant Alcazar for sexually abusing minors.

The motion is unopposed. Any opposition to the motion was required to have been filed and served at least nine court days prior to the hearing. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1005, subd. (b).)

RECOMMENDED RULING

The Court tentatively GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion to compel the Glendale Police Department (“GPD”) to comply with Plaintiffs’ subpoena and submit all documents and evidence responsive to the subpoena to the Court for an in camera review.

ANALYSIS

Legal Standard

Under CCP § 2017.010, “any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action..., if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” “In civil litigation, discovery may be obtained from a nonparty only through a deposition subpoena.” (Unzipped Apparel, LLC v. Bader (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 123, 127.) “The Civil Discovery Act . . . authorizes a nonparty’s oral deposition, written deposition, and deposition for [the] production of business records.” (Ibid.) “A deposition subpoena for the production of business records directs a nonparty’s custodian of records to deliver a copy of the requested documents to a deposition officer or to make the original documents available to the subpoenaing party for inspection and copying.” (Ibid.) “If a deponent fails to produce a requested document under his or her control, the subpoenaing party may bring a motion to compel production no later than 60 days after the completion of the record of the deposition.” (Ibid., emphasis in original.) The 60-day time period “begins to run when the deponent serves objections on the party.” (Rutledge v. Hewlett-Packard Co. (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 1164, 1192.)

“If a subpoena requires the attendance of a witness or the production of books, documents, electronically stored information, or other things before a court, or at the trial of an issue therein . . . the court, upon motion reasonably made . . . may make an order quashing the subpoena entirely, modifying it, or directing compliance with it upon those terms or conditions as the court shall declare, including protective orders.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.1, subd. (a).) A party to an action may bring a motion to compel compliance with a subpoena for the production of documents. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.1, subd. (b)(1).)

If a deponent fails to answer any question or to produce any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing under the deponent’s control that is specified in the deposition notice or a deposition subpoena, the party seeking discovery may move the court for an order compelling that answer or production. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.480, subd. (a).)

Discussion
On September 13, 2023, Plaintiffs served a subpoena on GPD for its investigative file and reports related to Alcazar. (Gilbert Decl., ¶ 4; Exhibit A.) Pursuant to the subpoena, Plaintiffs seek “[a]ny and all documents and evidence relating to the Glendale Police Department’s investigation of Denis Wilson Alcazar, DOB: 04/07/1984, including but not limited to reports, supplemental reports, statements, correspondence, emails, photographs, videotapes, CDs, notes, pleadings, video and/or audio recordings, and any other documents and evidence contained within your file.” (Id., ¶¶ 4-5; Exhibit A.) Defendant Alcazar was the subject of a criminal investigation by GPD for his abuse of Plaintiffs as well as the abuse of another student. (Id., ¶ 3.)

On October 4, 2023, GPD served an objection in response to the subpoena while also producing reports related specifically, and only, to Plaintiffs while withholding documents related to other victims of Alcazar.[1] (Gilbert Decl., ¶ 6; Exhibit B.) GPD indicated that it was willing to submit the withheld reports to the Court for an in camera review and determination as to whether the documents must be produced. (Id.) Counsel declares that Plaintiffs have no issue with this request. (Id.) Counsel states that the “Court can then determine what should be produced, as well as whether any of the further produced documents should be subject to redactions and/or a protective order.” (Id., ¶ 7.)

GPD objected to the subpoena on the grounds that it is overbroad and seeks documents not related to Plaintiffs, which involve unrelated minors and invades the right of privacy of such minors. (Gilbert Decl., ¶ 6; Exhibit B.) GPD produced all reports which pertain to Plaintiffs. (Id.)

The Court finds that discovery of reports, audio and/or video recordings, and evidence involving Alcazar is relevant to the claims at issue in this action. Such discovery may show a pattern of conduct by Defendant Alcazar or may lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

Moreover, given that the motion is unopposed, there is an inference it has merit under Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410.

The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion to compel GPD to comply with the subpoena issued by Plaintiffs and orders GPD to submit all documents and evidence responsive to the subpoena to the Court for an in camera review.