Judge: David B. Gelfound, Case: 22CHCV01266, Date: 2024-12-09 Tentative Ruling

Counsel wishing to submit on a tentative ruling may inform the clerk or courtroom assistant in North Valley Department F49, 9425 Penfield Ave., Chatsworth, CA 91311, at (818) 407-2249.  Please be aware that unless all parties submit, the matter will still be called for hearing and may be argued by any appearing/non-submitting parties. If the matter is submitted on the court's tentative ruling by all parties, counsel for moving party shall give notice of ruling. This may be done by incorporating verbatim the court's tentative ruling. The tentative ruling may be extracted verbatim by copying and pasting, as unformatted text, from the Los Angeles Superior Court’s website, http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org.
All hearings on law and motion and other calendar matters are generally NOT transcribed by a court reporter unless one is provided by the party(ies). 

Case Number: 22CHCV01266    Hearing Date: December 9, 2024    Dept: F49

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

NORTH VALLEY DISTRICT

DEPARTMENT F49

MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT TROY BETZ’S RESPONSES TO DEPOSITION QUESTIONS

Motion filed: 7/31/24

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Los Angeles Unified School District

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant Troy Betz

NOTICE: OK.¿¿¿ 

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order from this Court compelling Defendant Troy Betz’s responses to all 86 unanswered deposition questions, which he refused to answer by invoking his Fifth Amendment privilege.

TENTATIVE RULING: The motion is DENIED.

BACKGROUND

On November 30, 2022, Plaintiff Jane Doe (“Plaintiff”), a former student at Arleta High School, initiated this action seeking damages arising from an alleged sexual relationship with Troy Betz (“Betz”), which commenced when she was a minor. Subsequently, on January 19, 2023, Plaintiff filed her operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) against Defendants Los Angeles Unified School District (“LAUSD”) and Betz, alleging the following seven causes of action: (1) Sexual Battery/Abuse of a Minor (against Betz and Does 1-10), (2) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (against Betz and Does 21-30), (3) Negligent Hiring, Supervision & Retention of an Unfit Employee (against LAUSD and Does 1-20), (4) Breach of Mandatory Duty: Failure to Report Suspected Child Abuse (against LAUSD and Does 1-20), (5) Negligent Failure to Warn, Train or Educate (against LAUSD and Does 1-20), (6) Negligent Supervision of a Minor (against LAUSD and Does 1-20) and (7) Negligence (against Does 31-50).

On February 16, 2023, LAUSD filed its Answer to the FAC.

On April 3, 2023, a default was entered by the Clerk against Betz.

On June 25, 2024, the Court granted Betz’s motion to quash LAUSD’s deposition subpoena seeking production of documents.

On July 31, 2024, LAUSD filed the instant Motion to Compel Responses (the “Motion”) Subsequently, Betz filed his Opposition on November 22, 2024, and LAUSD replied on December 2, 2024.

ANALYSIS

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.480, subdivision (a), “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.”  

Additionally, “This motion shall be made no later than 60 days after the completion of the record of the deposition, and shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.480, subd. (b).)

A.    Meet and Confer

The Court finds that LAUSD has satisfied the meet and confer requirement. (See Mot. at p. 2, Ex. “1.”)

B.     Procedural Defects

Betz first contends that the Motion should be denied due to multiple procedural defects. Specifically, Betz argues that the Motion fails to comply with the requirements for a Separate Statement under California Rules of Court rule 3.1345. He points out that the Separate Statement uses the incorrect format; that it does not accurately state the text of each response, answer or objection as required by California Rules of Court 3.1345(c)(2); that it does not provide any factual or legal reasons (Cal. Rules of Court rule 3.1345(c)(3)); and that it fails to summarize relevant documents (Cal. Rules of Court rule 3.1345(c)(6.).

Notably, Betz asserts that the Motion contains other fatal defects, including that its Notice of Motion fails to state the “grounds upon which it will be made” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1010), and that the declaration does not include the three exhibits it claims to attach. Additionally, Betz states that the Motion’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities fail to contain the correct law concerning the Fifth Amendment issue.

Due to these above procedural defects, Betz claims he was forced to do LAUSD’s work, including correcting the formatting errors and providing the Court with factual context of the relevant proceedings for evaluation. (Opp’n. at p. 11.)

In its Reply, LAUSD concedes to most of the procedural defects but argues that these issues are not fatal. LAUSD admits that the missing exhibits from the accompanying declaration were instead attached to the Points and Authorities. (Reply at p. 4) Additionally, it contends that while the wrong statute was cited in the Notice of Motion, the correct code section is discussed in its Points and Authorities. (Reply at p. 4.) LAUSD also posits that the Court may overlook the failure of a notice of motion to state a ground for relief as the Court may treat the supporting papers as curing the defective notice, citing Luri v. Greenwald (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 1119, 1127 (Luri).

The Court observes that in Luri, the plaintiff’s motion seeking discretionary relief under Code of Civil Procedure section 473 failed to include a notice of motion. The Luri court held that the trial court did not err by not treating the motion as though plaintiff sought relief under the mandatory provision of § 473, reasoning that “the trial court could reasonably have rejected the entire motion as defective and noncompliant with California rules and statutes. The trial court overlooked these defects and reviewed the documents submitted to determine the specific basis upon which Luri sought relief, as permitted by Carrasco v. Craft (1985) 164 Cal.App.3d 796, 807-808.[]” (Luri, supra, 107 Cal.App.4th at p. 1127.)

Although the defect in the present Notice of Motion is distinguishable from the complete absence of notice in Luri case, the same principle applies: the Court may overlook the failure of a notice to state a ground for relief if the supporting materials clearly articulate the grounds upon which relief is sought.

Applying this principle, the Court concludes that while Betz has been prejudiced by the Motion’s formatting errors, the correct specific ground for relief is clearly discussed and argued in the accompanying papers.

Accordingly, the Court, in its discretion, proceeds to examine the Motion on its merits.

C.    Fifth Amendment Privilege

The right not to bear witness against oneself is enshrined in both the United States Constitution (Fifth Amendment) and the California Constitution (Article 1, § 15). (People v. Merfeld, 57 Cal.App.4th 1440, 1443 (1997).) The privilege applies in any proceeding, civil or criminal. (United States v. Balsys (1998) 524 U.S. 666, 672; Kastigar v. United States (1972) 406 U.S. 441, 444-445; see also, Evid. Code, § 940.)

“Under cases of the Supreme Court, there are four requirements that together trigger [the Fifth Amendment self-incrimination] privilege: the information sought must be (i) incriminating; (ii) personal to the defendant; (iii) obtained by compulsion; and (iv) testimonial or communicative in nature.” (Izazaga v. Superior Court (1991) 54 Cal.3d 356, 366 (Izazaga) [internal quotations omitted].) “Statutorily mandated discovery of evidence that meets these four requirements is prohibited. Conversely, discovery of evidence that does not meet each of these requirements is not barred by the self-incrimination clause.” (Ibid.)

Once a person claims the Fifth Amendment privilege, “the trial court must undertake a particularized inquiry with respect to each specific claim of privilege to determine whether the claimant has sustained his burden of establishing that the testimony or other evidence sought might tend to incriminate him.” (Warford v. Medeiros (1984) 160 Cal.App.3d 1035, 1045.)

“Ultimately, a trial court may reject an assertion of the privilege only when it appears to the court perfectly clear, from a careful consideration of all the circumstances in the case, that the witness is mistaken, and that the answer[s] cannot possibly have such tendency to incriminate.” (People v. Trujeque (2015) 61 Cal.4th 227, 267 [internal quotations omitted].) 

1)                  Deposition Questions at Issue

LAUSD asserts that on May 16, 2024, it deposed Betz, who invoked the Fifth Amendment privilege and refused to answer the following 86 questions:

1.      “And can you, kind of, walk me through your educational background, beginning with high school?” (Betz Deposition p. 10:8-9)

2.      “Where did you go to high school?” (Betz Deposition p. 12:1)

3.      “Do you have any college degree?” (Betz Deposition p. 12:8)

4.      “Mr. Betz, when were you initially hired by the Los Angeles Unified School District in any capacity?” (Betz Deposition p. 14:12-13)

5.      And do you know when your last date of employment with Los Angeles Unified School District was?” (Betz Deposition p. 14:17-18)

6.      “Are you currently employed?” (Betz Deposition p. 15:2)

7.      “Do you have any social media accounts?” (Betz Deposition p. 15:6-7)

8.      “Can you state any social media accounts that you have currently?” (Betz Deposition p. 15:12-13)

9.      “Can you state any social media accounts that you’ve had in the past? (Betz Deposition p. 15:18-19)

10. “Have you ever worked for the Los Angeles Unified School District?” (Betz Deposition p. 15:24-25)

11. “Were you a coach at any time for the Los Angeles Unified School District?” (Betz Deposition p. 16:5-6)

12. Have you ever worked as a teacher for the Los Angeles Unified School District?” (Betz Deposition p. 16:11-12)

13. “Have you ever worked at Arleta High School?” (Betz Deposition p. 16:17)

14. “Do you know a former student of Arleta High School named [Teresa R.]” (Betz Deposition p. 16:22-23)

15. “Are you aware that you were named as a defendant in the lawsuit that we’re sitting here for the deposition?” (Betz Deposition p. 17:9-10)

16. “Were you ever served with a lawsuit pertaining to your employment in the last three years?” (Betz Deposition p. 17:15-16)

17. “How long have you lived at that address?” (Betz Deposition p. 17:24)

18. “Where did you live prior to the Louise Avenue address?” (Betz Deposition p. 18:4)

19. “Are you familiar with the school district’s code of conduct for teachers?” (Betz Deposition p. 18:14-15)

20. “Did you ever violate, in your mind, the code of conduct that LA Unified has for teachers?” (Betz Deposition p. 18:20-21)

21. “When you say you ‘stayed with him,’ does that mean that you were at his residence, or were you at your own residence?” (Betz Deposition p. 19:9-10)

22. “Do you know who Nicole Patin is, P-A-T-I-N?” (Betz Deposition p. 19:17)

23. “Before you worked for the Los Angeles Unified School District, how were you employed?” (Betz Deposition p. 20:3-4)

24. “Are you aware that you’re a defendant in the case that we are sitting for here in deposition?” (Betz Deposition p. 20:9-10)

25. “Are you aware that you have been defaulted in that particular case?” (Betz Deposition p. 20:15-16)

26. “Do you know who the plaintiff is in this particular case?” (Betz Deposition p. 20:21-22)

27. “Have you ever had union representation as a teacher with Los Angeles Unified School District?” (Betz Deposition p. 21:2-3)

28. “Did you -- were you ever interviewed by investigators last name Tillman and Navarro, employed by Los Angeles Unified School District?” (Betz Deposition p. 21:10-12)

29. “Did you tell the investigators that you had read the lawsuit papers and it was your understanding that you were being sued for having an inappropriate relationship with a student?” (Betz Deposition p. 21:17-19)

30. “Did you ever work on the Arleta High School yearbook?” (Betz Deposition p. 21:24)

31. “When you worked on the yearbook at Arleta High School, did you ever have students come into your classroom during lunchtime?” (Betz Deposition p. 22:4-6)

32. “Same question, students coming in after school?” (Betz Deposition p. 22:11)

33. “Were you aware that at Arleta High School there was a guideline that it was best practice that if a teacher is one-on-one with a student in a classroom that the teacher leave the door open?” (Betz Deposition p. 22:16-19)

34. “Have you ever communicated with any students on social media?” (Betz Deposition p. 22:24-25)

35. “Did you have a relationship with a woman named [Teresa¿R.] after she turned 18 years of age?” (Betz Deposition p. 23:5-6)

36. “How long did that relationship with [Teresa R.] last after she turned 18 years of age?” (Betz Deposition p. 23:11-12)

37. “Do you have a cell phone?” (Betz Deposition p. 23:17)

38. “Did the district, as your employer, ever issue you a cell phone?” (Betz Deposition p. 23:22-23)

39. “Did you ever meet [Teresa R.'s] parents?” (Betz Deposition p. 24:3)

40. “Plaintiff [Teresa R.] testified at her deposition that there was no sexual contact between you and her at any time on the campus of Arleta High School; is that true?” (Betz Deposition p. 24:8-10)

41. “Do you know a student named Maii Garcia?” (Betz Deposition p. 24:15)

42. “Have you ever heard of that name before? Maii Garcia?” (Betz Deposition p. 24:20)

43. “As part of your duties as a teacher at Arleta High School, did you ever chaperone a prom?” (Betz Deposition p. 24:25-25:1)

44. “Did you ever chaperone a prom where [Teresa R.] was there as a student?” (Betz Deposition p. 25:6-7)

45. “I know it's not a very good copy, Mr. Betz, and I apologize for that, but can you identify yourself in this particular photograph?” [referring to Exhibit 3] (Betz Deposition p. 25:16-18)

46. “Can you identify [Teresa R.] in this particular photograph?” [referring to Exhibit 3] (Betz Deposition p. 25:23-24)

47. “Mr. Betz, I'm going to mark this as Exhibit 4. It appears to be a photograph of you holding a yearbook over your private parts, so to speak, and the rest of you appears to have no clothes on. Have you ever seen this photograph before?” (Betz Deposition p. 26:8-11)

48. “Did you take a selfie of yourself in the mirror with a yearbook covering your private parts?” (Betz Deposition p. 26:17-18)

49. “Did you send a photograph that we've marked as Exhibit 4 to a student named Maii Garcia?” (Betz Deposition p. 26:23-24)

50. “Is your email address A-RT- D-O-G-G at earthlink.net?” [After having deponent read Exhibit 5] (Betz Deposition p. 27:20)

51. “Have you seen this particular email before, Mr. Betz?” [referring to Exhibit 5] (Betz Deposition p. 27:25)

52. “Did you send this email to [Teresa R.]?” [referring to Exhibit 5] (Betz Deposition p. 28:5)

53. “What is Torchwood Hub#4?” (Betz Deposition p. 28:10)

54. “Have you ever heard of the television show Doctor Who?” (Betz Deposition p. 28:15)

55. “When you were working at Arleta High School, did you --¿were you on the third floor?” (Betz Deposition p. 28: 20- 21)

56. “Did you have a door on your window when you were teaching at Arleta High School?” (Betz Deposition p. 29:2-3)

57. “In your doors at Arleta High School when you were teaching, did you have any kind of windows within the doors?” (Betz Deposition p. 29:12-13)

58. “Did you ever put any kind of poster that looked like an alien inside a window of your classroom at Arleta High School?” (Betz Deposition p. 29:19-20)

59. “And what we've marked as Exhibit 5 that's in front of your hand, can you identify that- can you authenticate that as a true and correct copy of an email?” (Betz Deposition p. 30:1-3)

60. “Have you ever heard of something called a "mandated reporter"?” (Betz Deposition p. 30:8-9)

61. “Do you know whether you are or are not a mandated reporter?” (Betz Deposition p. 30:14-15)

62. “Do you know if you ever have been a mandated reporter?” (Betz Deposition p. 30:20)

63. “Did you ever have the responsibility of reporting suspected child abuse in your career?” (Betz Deposition p. 30:25-31:1)

64. “Did Arleta High School administrators ever train you on the teacher code of conduct? (Betz Deposition p. 31:12-13)”

65. “Isn't it true that Los Angeles Unified School District provided you with mandated reporting -- reporter training on multiple occasions?” (Betz Deposition p. 31:18-20)

66. “Is it true that Arleta high school administration provided you with training regarding the employee code of conduction multiple occasions?” (Betz Deposition p. 31:25-32:2)

67. “Isn't it true that you did not follow that code of conduct?” (Betz Deposition p. 32:7-8)

68. “Do you currently possess any photographs of [Teresa R.]?” (Betz Deposition p. 32:13)

69. “Do you currently possess any writings by [Teresa R.]?” (Betz Deposition p. 32:18)

70. “Do you currently possess any videos of [Teresa R.]?” (Betz Deposition p. 32:23)

71. “With respect to those three questions, have you ever had photographs of [Teresa R.] in your possession in the past?” (Betz Deposition p. 33:3-4)

72. “Have you ever had videos of [Teresa R.] in your possession in the past?” (Betz Deposition p. 33:9-10)

73. “Have you ever had any writings that were made by [Teresa R.] in the past?” (Betz Deposition p. 33:15-16)

74. “Have you ever kept any kind of writings that you made relating to [Teresa R.]?” (Betz Deposition p. 33:21- 22)

75. “After [Teresa R.] turned 18 years of age in 2015, did you have a relationship with her?” (Betz Deposition p. 34:2-3)

76. “After she turned 18 in October 2015, did you -- or do you have any photographs from her from after that date?” (Betz Deposition p. 34:8-9)

77. “Same question, videos?” [referring to question 80] (Betz Deposition p. 34:14)

78. “Same question, writings?” [referring to question 80] (Betz Deposition p. 34:19)

79. “Did you ever go to visit [Teresa R.] at her place of work?” (Betz Deposition p. 34:24-25)

80. “Did you ever chase [Teresa R.] At her place of work?” (Betz Deposition p. 35:5)

81. “Did you ever use any email addresses that are different from the one that appears in Exhibit 5 as artdogg@earthlink.net?” (Betz Deposition p. 35:10-11)

82. “Have you ever had an Instagram account?” (Betz Deposition p. 35:16)

83. “Have you ever communicated with any students on that Instagram account?” (Betz Deposition p. 35:21-22)

84. “Did you ever receive a credential for teaching from the Commission on Teaching Credentials?” (Betz Deposition p. 36:3-5)

85. “Are you aware that that – or that credential was revoked by the commission” (Betz Deposition p. 36:10-11)

86. “Do you know whether your credential's been revoked by the Commission on Teacher Credentialing?” (Betz Deposition p. 36:18-19)

(LAUSD’s Separate Statement)

2)                  Incriminating Information

The information sought need not be directly incriminatory. Rather, the information sought is considered incriminating if the information might provide a link in the chain of evidence of guilt (Hoffman v. United States (1951) 341 U.S. 479, 486 (Hoffman); People v. Lucas (1995) 12 Cal.4th 415, 454) or might lead to incriminating evidence even though the information itself is not inculpatory. (United States v. Hubbell (2000) 530 U.S. 27, 35-36.) The witness must have reasonable cause to apprehend danger from a direct answer. (Hoffman, supra, at p. 486.)  A danger of incrimination “of ‘imaginary and unsubstantial character’ will not suffice. [Citation.]”  (Ohio v. Reiner (2001) 532 U.S. 17, 21.) 

In Zonver v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1969) 270 Cal.App.2d 613 (Zonver), the court addressed a claim of Fifth Amendment privilege in refusing to answer inquiries into the claimants’ social and sexual relationship. It held that information about the locations and times a married man, Mr. Zonver, had visited his female bookkeeper could be a strong link in a chain of evidence proving guilty of a variety of state misdemeanors and felonies, making self-incrimination realistic. (Zonver, supra, 270 Cal.App.2d at pp. 619-621.) 

Notably, the Zonver court emphasized that it is “emphatically wrong” for the trial court to think Mr. Zonver’s privilege in connection with possible prosecution under the federal Mann Act was adequately protected by restricting its order to questions related only to “activities within the State of California.” It reasoned that although “activities within the State of California” are not directly related to “interstate transportation”, a conduct proscribed in the Mann Act, they may nevertheless be relevant to illuminate the purpose or opportunity in later transportation, resulting in self-incrimination future charges based on the possible Mann Act prosecution. (Id. at p. 619.)

Here, LAUSD merely asserts that none of the above-listed questions bear on whether Betz committed sexual misconduct against Plaintiff. However, LAUSD provides no further explanation or legal analysis to support its argument.

In his response, Betz argues that these questions are barred by the Fifth Amendment as they could require answers that forge links in a chain of facts imperiling Betz. (Opp’n. at p. 18.) Specifically, Betz notes that he is the named defendant in the present case and Plaintiff alleges that Betz was a teacher in a “position of authority” at Plaintiff’s high school and Betz “used this position to gain Plaintiff’s trust and friendship” so he could take advantage of Plaintiff sexually. (Betz’s Separate Statement at p. 13.) Allegedly the misconduct took place on and off school grounds, and through multiple forms of communication. Moreover, Betz’s classroom door allegedly had a “Doctor Who” alien covering one of the windows, obstructing the view inside. (Id. at p. 33.) Betz contends that answering the deposition questions could forge a link in a chain of facts, thereby implicating an opportunity to commit the alleged misconduct.

Additionally, Bets highlights that Plaintiff’s allegations of sexual misconduct with a minor are not limited to Plaintiff herself. The FAC also alleges that Bets continued to abuse “young children” and “engaging in repeated misconduct at LAUSD[.]” (Betz’s Separate Statement at p. 13.) Bets argues that the deposition questions open the door to inquiries about his Betz’s educational background, including when and how Betz obtained his teaching credentials, and thereby gained the opportunity and ability to alleged “groom” and “condition” Plaintiff and allegedly other minors to have sexual relationship with him. (Id. at p. 14.)

The Court finds the reasoning in Zonver regarding the Fifth Amendment privilege, as applied to the discovery of social and sexual relationship involving the claimant, directly in point.

The deposition questions concern the following topics: (1) Betz’s work experience and education related to his employment with LAUSD (Question Nos. 1-6, 10-13, 16, 19-20, 23, 27-33, 43, 54-58, 60-67, 84-86), (2) Betz’ use of social media or communication methods (Questions Nos. 7-9, 34, 38, 50, 59, 81-83), (3) Betz’s knowledge of and relationship with Plaintiff during both minor and adult (Question Nos. 14-15, 24-26, 35-36, 39-40, 44, 51-53, 68-80), (4) Betz’s residence (Question Nos. 17-18, 21), (5) Betz’s knowledge and relationship with other female students (Question Nos. 22, 41-42, 45-49).

After carefully considering all of the circumstances in the case and each claim of privilege invoked by Betz, the Court finds that the information sought by each individual questions may serve a link to a potential criminal prosecution under state sex statutes, including “evidence tending to establish motive, desire or opportunity to engage in the conduct proscribed.” Consequently, the Court finds Betz’s argument persuasive. (See People v. Trujeque, supra, 61 Cal.4th at p. 267.)

Accordingly, the Court concludes that the first requirement in Izazaga is satisfied, finding the information sought by LAUSD’s subpoena questions is incriminating.

3)                  Personal to Betz

“The Fifth Amendment privilege ... being personal to the defendant, does not extend to the testimony or statements of third parties called as witness at trial.” (United States v. Nobles (1975) 422 U.S. 225, 234.)

            Here, it is uncontested that Betz is the named defendant in the case alleging sexual misconduct. Therefore, Betz may personally be subject to possible criminal prosecution.

            Accordingly, the second Izazaga requirement is met.

4)                  Obtained by Compulsion

The Court reiterates that “[t]he constitutional guarantee against compelled self-incrimination protects an individual from being forced to testify against himself or herself in a pending [] proceeding ... ‘civil or criminal, formal or informal,’ where he or she reasonably believes the answers might incriminate him or her in a criminal case. [Citations.]” (Oiye v. Fox (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 1036, 1052.) (Underlines added.) “[a] party may claim the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination where to disclose [] information might lead to prosecution under [certain] statutes.” (In re Marriage of Sachs (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 1144, 1156.) (Underlines added.)

However, the privilege “cannot be maintained in relation to ‘records required by law to be kept in order that there may be suitable information of transactions which are the appropriate subjects of governmental regulation and the enforcement of restrictions validly established.’” (Shapiro v. United States (1948) 335 U.S. 1, 633 (Shapiro).)

Here, it is evident that the testimony compelled by a deposition subpoena falls within the scope of “disclose information” and “testify” that the Fifth Amendment privilege protects against self-incrimination. (See Oiye v. Fox, supra, 211 Cal.App.4th at p. 1052; In re Marriage of Sachs, supra, 95 Cal.App.4th at p.1156.)

Based on the above, the Court concludes that this part of the Izazaga test is also satisfied.

5)                  Testimonial or Communicative in Nature

It is clear that the Fifth Amendment does not independently proscribe the compelled production of every sort of incriminating evidence but “applies only when the accused is compelled to make a Testimonial Communication that is incriminating.” (Fisher v. U.S. (1976) 425 U.S. 391, 408 (Fisher).) “[W]e leave intact the firmly established precedents that hold the self-incrimination privilege inapplicable to, and allow mandatory production of, nontestimonial evidence such as fingerprints, blood samples, breath samples, appearances in lineups, and handwriting and voice exemplars.” (People v. Collie (1981) 30 Cal.3d 43, 55, fn. 7)

It is undisputed that testimony and answers compelled by deposition subpoena are testimonial or communicative in nature.

Therefore, the Court’s analysis of the four-part requirements under Izazaga leads to the conclusion that Betz’s claim of Fifth Amendment privilege is justified.

Based on the foregoing, the Court DENIES the Motion.

CONCLUSION

Defendant Los Angeles Unified School District’s Motion to Compel Defendant Troy Betz’s Responses to Deposition Questions is DENIED.

Moving party to give notice.