Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 21STCV23350, Date: 2023-02-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV23350    Hearing Date: February 2, 2023    Dept: 28

Plaintiff Jane Doe’s Motion to Compel Scott Wilbur’s Compliance with Deposition Question

Having considered the moving, opposing and reply papers, the Court rules as follows.

BACKGROUND

On June 23, 2021, Plaintiff Jane Doe (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant Manhattan Beach Unified School District (“Defendant”) for negligence of district employees, negligent supervision and negligence per se.

On August 18, 2021, Defendant filed an answer and a Cross-Complaint against Cross-Defendant Thomas Allen Wallace (“Cross-Defendant”) for total equitable indemnity, partial equitable indemnity and declaratory relief.

On January 6, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel Scott Wilbur’s Compliance with his Deposition to be heard on February 2, 2023. On January 20, 2023, Defendant filed an opposition. On January 25, 2023, Plaintiff filed a reply.

Trial is scheduled for July 21, 2023.

PARTY’S REQUESTS

Plaintiff requests the Court order Scott Wilbur (“Wilbur”) to answer questions asked at his previous deposition, and for sanctions of $5,910.00 against Defendant.

Defendant requests the Court deny the motion and enforce sanctions of $570.00 against Plaintiff.

LEGAL STANDARD

If a deponent fails to answer any question or produce any document, the party seeking discovery may move the court for an order compelling that answer or production. CCP § 2025.480. A plaintiff may serve a deposition notice without leave of court on any date that is 20 days after the service of the summons on, or appearance by, any defendant. CCP § 2025.210.

CRC Rule 3.1346 states “A written notice and all moving papers supporting a motion to compel an answer to a deposition question or to compel production of a document or tangible thing from a nonparty deponent must be personally served on the nonparty deponent unless the nonparty deponent agrees to accept service by mail or electronic service at an address or electronic service address specified on the deposition record.”

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff brought a case against Defendant, Manhattan Beach Unified School District, alleging that Defendant allowed Cross-Defendant to sexually abuse Plaintiff while she was a student. Wilbur was the principal at the time of the alleged abuse.

Plaintiff deposed Wilbur, Defendant’s former principal. During said deposition, Wilbur testified he had reported suspected abuse as a mandated reporter on four to six occasions; when Plaintiff asked whether any of these reports involved allegations of sexual abuse, defense counsel objected on the basis that the information is confidential “under the Penal Code.” Parties suspended the deposition and attempted to meet and confer on the issue.

The Court finds the subject questions do not violate CANRA.  CANRA reports, under PC §11167.5, are considered confidential and may only be disclosed to agencies and investigators identified by statute. The questions to which answers are sought to be compelled do not identify any specific reports, they only ask whether other reports Mr. Wilbur made involved allegations of sexual abuse.  There were no requests for the identities of alleged victims and perpetrators, no requests for the specifics of any of the allegations contained in the reports.   While the reports and the reporters are confidential, the underlying information is not. Courts have ruled that analogous statues, such as confidential vehicle accident reports, allow for the use of the underlying data. In Davies v. Superior Court (1984) 36 Cal.3d 291, 298, the Court found that the confidentiality statute “does not create a privilege in the reporting party to refuse to be a witness or to disclose information about the accident.”

The Court also sees the potential relevance of the question. It provides information as to whether Wilbur ever noticed or reported alleged sexual abuse, which is relevant for a claim of sexual abuse that occurred under his tenure as principal.

The Court orders Wilbur to answer the subject question.

The Court denies the request for sanctions. 

CONCLUSION

Plaintiff Jane Doe’s Motion to Compel Scott Wilbur’s Compliance with Deposition Question is GRANTED.  Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is DENIED. 

Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

Moving Party is ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.