Judge Daniel M. Crowley, Case Number: 22STCV31017, Date: 2024-12-24 Tentative Ruling

All parties are urged to meet and confer with all parties concerning this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreed-upon resolution of their matter.  If you are able to reach an agreement, please notify the courtroom staff in advance of the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative ruling rather than argue the motion by notifying the court by e-mailing the court at: SMCDEPT71@lacourt.org. Do not click on the email address, either copy and paste it or type it into your email. Include the word "SUBMITS" in all caps and the Case Number in the Subject line. In the body of the email, please provide the date and time of the hearing, your name, your contact information, the party you represent, and whether that party is a plaintiff, defendant, cross-complainant, cross-defendant, claimant, intervenor, or non-party, etc.

            Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may still appear at the hearing and argue the matter, and the court could change its tentative based upon the argument.  Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue. If you submit, but still intend to appear, include the words "SUBMITS, BUT WILL APPEAR" in the Subject line.

            If you elect to argue your matter, you are urged to do so remotely, via Court-Connect. If the moving party fails to appear and/or submit to the Court’s tentative ruling, the Court will take the matter off calendar.

            Note that once the Court has issued a tentative, the Court has the inherent authority not to allow the withdrawal of a motion and to adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the court.

If you submitted a courtesy copy of your papers containing media (such as a DVD or thumb drive), unless you request the return of the media in your papers, the court will destroy it following the hearing of your matter.

Plaintiff D.P.’s motion to compel the deposition of Defendant Los Angeles Unified School District’s person(s) most knowledgeable and produce the requested documents is granted. Defendant Los Angeles Unified School District is to produce its PMK for deposition within 20 days of this ruling.

Plaintiff D.P.’s request for sanctions on the motion to compel the deposition of Defendant Los Angeles Unified School District’s person(s) most knowledgeable is granted in the reduced total amount of $2,648.00. Sanctions are due within 20 days of this ruling.

Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions on the motion to compel production of yearbooks against Defendant Los Angeles Unified School District is granted in the total amount of $1,460.00. Sanctions are due within 20 days of this ruling.

Plaintiff D.P. (“D.P”) (“Plaintiff”) moves to compel the deposition of Defendant Los Angeles Unified School District’s (“LAUSD”) (“Defendant”) Person(s) Most Knowledgeable (“PMK”). (Notice of Motion Depo, pgs. 1-2; C.C.P. §2025.450.) Plaintiff requests sanctions against Defendant and its counsel of record, Michael Malekan of Hurrell Cantrall, LLP, in the amount of $2,900.00. (Notice of Motion Depo, pg. 2; C.C.P. §§2023.030, 2025.450.)

Plaintiff moves to compel LAUSD to produce unredacted yearbooks. (Notice of Motion Yearbooks, pg. 1.) Plaintiff requests sanctions against Defendant and its counsel of record, Hurrell Cantrall, LLP, in the amount of $2,000.00, on the grounds that Defendant’s objections under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (“FERPA”), 20 U.S.C. §1232g, are

without merit. (Notice of Motion Yearbooks, pg. 2; C.C.P. §§2023.010 et seq., 2031.010 et seq.)

Having reviewed Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant’s PMK to Attend and Produce Documents at Deposition, the Court rules as follows.

On February 27, 2024, Plaintiff noticed the Deposition of Defendant’s PMK and Custodian(s) of Records, with the deposition to take place on March 15, 2024. (Decl. of Majerus ¶3, Exh. 1.) On June 14, 2024, Plaintiff requested Defendant’s PMK availability for deposition. (Decl. of Majerus ¶4, Exh. 2.)

On July 9, 2024, Plaintiff served an amended notice for LAUSD’s PMK deposition to take place on July 19, 2024, and requested alternative dates by the end of the week should July 19th not work for Defendant. (Decl. of Majerus ¶5, Exh. 3.) On July 12, 2024, Defendant objected to the deposition for being unilaterally set and objected to the topics the witness was to be examined. (Decl. of Majerus ¶6, Exh. 4.) Defendant agreed to meet and confer and then produce the witness at a mutually agreeable date and time. (Decl. of Majerus ¶6.)

On July 15, 2024, Plaintiff requested Defendant provide additional dates by the end of the week and offered to set up a call to meet and confer regarding the PMK topics; however, Defendant failed to respond. (Decl. of Majerus ¶7, Exh. 5.) On July 22, 2024, Plaintiff followed up with Defendant regarding dates for the PMK deposition. (Decl. of Majerus ¶8.) On July 23, 2024, Defendant indicated Plaintiff’s two PMK topics were irrelevant. (Decl. of Majerus ¶8.) Plaintiff responded, asking Defendant to explain which category (Defendant’s retention policies or the perpetrator’s employment) is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; Defendant failed to respond. (Decl. of Majerus ¶8, Exh. 6.)

On July 26, 2024, Plaintiff served an amended PMK deposition notice for August 9, 2024. (Decl. of Majerus ¶9, Exh. 7.) On July 30, 2024, Defendant agreed to produce a PMK on the alleged perpetrator’s employment with LAUSD up to 1983. (Decl. of Majerus ¶10.) On August 1, 2024, Defendant again objected to the PMK topics and the unilaterally set date. (Decl. of Majerus ¶11, Exh. 8.) Defendant agreed to meet and confer and produce the witness on a mutually agreeable date. (Decl. of Majerus ¶11, Exh. 8.)

On August 5, 2024, Plaintiff and Defendant telephonically met and conferred and were unable to reach an agreement regarding a PMK being produced to testify to the entirety of the alleged perpetrator’s employment with LAUSD. (Decl. of Majerus ¶12.)

On September 16, 2024, the parties attended an Informal Discovery Conference (“IDC”). (Decl. of Majerus ¶13.) After the IDC, on September 17, 2024, Plaintiff again requested dates for the PMK deposition. (Decl. of Majerus ¶13, Exh. 9.)

On October 24, 2024, Plaintiff served Defendant with an amended PMK deposition notice to take place on November 4, 2024. (Decl. of Majerus ¶14, Exh. 10.)

On October 30, 2024, Defendant again objected on the grounds the deposition was unilaterally set. (Decl. of Majerus ¶15, Exh. 11.) Defendant also indicated it would not “entertain” a PMK notice that used the term “PERPETRATOR.” (Decl. of Majerus ¶15, Exh. 11.)

On November 4, 2024, Defendant’s PMK failed to appear at the noticed deposition, so Plaintiff’s counsel recorded the nonappearance. (See Decl. of Majerus ¶16, Exh. 12.)

On December 9, 2024, Plaintiff filed the instant motion. Defendant filed its opposition on December 20, 2024. No reply has been filed.

The Court grants Plaintiff’s motion pursuant to C.C.P. §2025.450 and orders Defendant’s PMK to appear for deposition and produce the requested documents within 20 days. Plaintiff has demonstrated good cause to order Defendant to produce a PMK witness and the requested documents.

Plaintiff requests monetary sanctions totaling $2,900 against Defendant and its counsel.

The Court awards sanctions against Defendant and its counsel, jointly and severally, pursuant to C.C.P. §2025.450(g)(1) in the reduced total amount of $2,648.00, in light of the fact no reply was filed, calculated as follows:

Having reviewed Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel LAUSD to produce unredacted yearbooks, the Court rules as follows.

On May 28, 2024, Plaintiff served Defendant with a set of requests for production of documents, wherein one such request asked Defendant to produce all yearbooks from Carver during the relevant time period of 1980 to 1983. (Decl. of Majerus ¶4.) On August 1, 2024, Defendant responded to Plaintiff’s request, claiming it was in the process of conducting a diligent search for yearbooks at Carver during the relevant time period. (Decl. of Majerus ¶5.) On September 16, 2024, the parties attended an IDC where the Court strongly advised Defendant to produce unredacted yearbooks, as they are reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. (Decl. of Majerus ¶7.) On October 28, 2024, Defendant served amended responses to Plaintiff’s requests for production of documents, as well as redacted yearbooks for the years 1977-1979, and 1982. (Decl. of Majerus ¶8.) Plaintiff now moves to compel production of unredacted yearbooks for the years 1977-1979, and 1982.

Defendant’s opposition to Plaintiff’s motion to compel production of unredacted yearbooks indicates that it has produced the unredacted yearbooks.

Plaintiffs request monetary sanctions totaling $2,000.00 against Defendant and its counsel of record.

The Court awards sanctions against Defendant and its counsel, jointly and severally, pursuant to C.C.P. §2031.300(c) in the reduced total amount of $1,460.00, in light of the fact no reply was filed, calculated as follows:

Hon. Daniel M. Crowley

Judge of the Superior Court