Judge: Daniel S. Murphy, Case: 24STCV18509, Date: 2025-05-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV18509    Hearing Date: May 14, 2025    Dept: 32

BACKGROUND

            On July 25, 2024, various Jane Roe plaintiffs filed this action against Defendant Los Angeles Unified School District, alleging childhood sexual abuse. The complaint alleges Defendant’s failure to prevent repeated sexual assault by one of its employees, Paul Chapel.

            On April 18, 2025, Plaintiffs filed the instant motion to compel Defendant’s further responses to requests for production. Defendant filed its opposition on May 1, 2025.

LEGAL STANDARD

Upon receiving responses to its discovery requests, the propounding party may move for an order compelling further responses if the responses are incomplete or evasive, or objections are without merit or too general. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300(a), 2031.310(a), 2033.290(a).)

The party seeking production of documents bears the initial burden of showing good cause through a fact-specific showing of relevance. (Kirkland v. Superior Court (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 92, 98.) Once this showing is made, the burden shifts to the responding party to justify any objections. (Ibid.) 

MEET AND CONFER

A motion to compel further must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration demonstrating an attempt to resolve the matter informally. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300(b)(1), 2031.310(b), 2033.290(b).) The Court finds that Plaintiffs have satisfied the meet and confer requirement. (See Gures Decl.)

DISCUSSION

I. Personnel File and Related Information

            RFP Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 13, 22, and 23 seek documents pertaining to Chapel’s personnel file and other related information which may not necessarily be contained within a personnel file, such as investigations, complaints, or training. This is directly related to the allegations, thus there is good cause for the information.

            Defendant responded by stating that it “will comply with this request, subject to the entry of an appropriate protective order, by producing” various specified documents. This is not a complete statement of compliance. A statement of compliance “shall state that the production . . . will be allowed either in whole or in part, and that all documents or things in the demanded category that are in the possession, custody, or control of that party and to which no objection is being made will be included in the production.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.220.) Merely stating that Defendant “will comply” and listing some documents covered by the requests does not constitute a valid statement of compliance.

            Defendant argues that the motion is moot because it has since provided supplemental responses.

            The motion is DENIED as to RFP Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 13, 22, and 23 as MOOT.

II. Misconduct Investigations

            RFP Nos. 8, 10, 12, 18, 26, and 27 seek documents pertaining to Chapel’s misconduct during his employment with Defendant, such as investigations and discipline. This is directly related to the allegations, thus there is good cause for the information.

            As with above, Defendant responded by stating that it “will comply with this request, subject to the entry of an appropriate protective order, by producing” various specified documents. Again, this is not a proper statement of compliance.

            Defendant argues that the motion is moot because it has since provided supplemental responses.

            The motion is DENIED as to RFP Nos. 8, 10, 12, 18, 26, and 27 as MOOT.

III. Percipient Witnesses

            RFP No. 39 requests all photos showing Plaintiffs as students at the school. Defendant responded that it “will comply with this request, subject to the entry of an appropriate protective order, by producing Plaintiffs’ student records.” The parties are ordered to prepare a protective order, and Defendant shall provide a photos within 5 days of the protective order being signed.

            RFP No. 43 seeks all employee rosters showing the names of administrators, teachers, coaches, employees, and/or staff assigned to the school for the period of 1999 to 2011. RFP No. 44 seeks all documents showing the identity of Defendant’s superintendents for the same time period. Plaintiff is entitled to employee rosters, as that is a specific document reasonably calculated to ascertain the identity of potential witnesses. The request is reasonably limited to the time period when Plaintiffs were students at the school. However, seeking “all documents” containing the names of superintendents is overbroad.   

            RFP No. 46 seeks a copy of each yearbook for the school during the time period. This request is reasonably calculated to discover the identities of potential witnesses, and it is reasonably limited to one yearbook for each relevant school year. Defendant makes no attempt to substantiate its objections to this request.

            The motion is GRANTED as to RFP Nos. 39, 43, and 46, and DENIED as to RFP No. 44.

IV. Insurance Information

            RFP No. 45 seeks the insurance policies which Defendant believes may cover the liability alleged in the complaint. Defendant responded that it “will comply with this request by producing a Chart/Depiction of Policies and Coverage ‘Towers.’”

            This is not a proper statement of compliance, nor is it responsive. The request seeks the insurance policies themselves, not a chart depicting the policies. Defendant argues that it has provided the information through its response to Form Interrogatory No. 4.1. However, “[a] party is permitted to use multiple methods of obtaining discovery and the fact that information was disclosed under one method is not, standing alone, a proper basis for refusing to provide discovery under another method.” (Irvington-Moore, Inc. v. Superior Court (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 733, 739.)     

            Irvington Moore also held that “[a] party may obtain discovery of the existence and contents of any agreement under which any insurance carrier may be liable to satisfy in whole or in part a judgment that may be entered in the action or to indemnify or reimburse for payments made to satisfy the judgment.” (Irvington-Moore, supra, 14 Cal.App.4th at p. 743.) Thus, the insurance policies are discoverable. Plaintiffs are entitled to investigate Defendant’s ability to satisfy a potential judgment.

            If Defendant has no documents to produce in response to this request, it must provide a proper statement of inability to comply. A statement of inability to comply “shall affirm that a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry has been made in an effort to comply with that demand. This statement shall also specify whether the inability to comply is because the particular item or category has never existed, has been destroyed, has been lost, misplaced, or stolen, or has never been, or is no longer, in the possession, custody, or control of the responding party.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.230.)

            The motion is GRANTED as to RFP No. 45.

CONCLUSION

            Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further responses is GRANTED in part as set forth above. A protective order shall be filed with the court within 10 days, and Defendant shall provide further responses to the subject RFPs within 20 days of this order. Sanctions are denied as the parties acted with substantial justification.