Judge: Douglas W. Stern, Case: 21STCV13351, Date: 2022-12-07 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV13351 Hearing Date: December 7, 2022 Dept: 68
John Doe vs. San Marino Unified School District, et al.
Case No. 21STCV13351
Motion to (1) Compel
Further Responses from Defendant to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of
Documents (Set One) and (2) Award Sanctions
BACKGROUND
The complaint in this case
was filed on April 7, 2021. The complaint was related to alleged incidents of
abuse against Plaintiff by a schoolteacher who worked for Defendant School
District. Plaintiff filed this motion on August 19, 2022. Defendant filed its
opposition on August 26, 2022. Defendant replied on September 7, 2022. On
September 14, 2022, the parties were ordered to conduct a meaningful meet and
confer, and the subsequent follow-up hearing on this motion was continued a
couple times, and it is now set for December 7, 2022.
MOVING PARTY’S
POSITION
The moving party
is requesting an order requiring Defendant to provide further responses to
Requests Nos. 8-12, 17, 22-23, and 44-45 of his Requests for Production of
Documents. These interrogatories request information regarding the personnel
file of the allegedly abusive schoolteacher who was employed by Defendant, and
choir rosters from the school district. Plaintiff argues that the information
sought is foundational evidence, it is relevant, and Defendant’s privacy
concerns are without merit. Plaintiff filed this motion because, at the time,
Department 68 did not conduct informal discovery conferences. Plaintiff seeks $2,760
in sanctions.
OPPOSITION
Defendant argues
that the personnel file of Howard Cheung, the former employee, is protected
from disclosure by his constitutional right of privacy to the extent that
Plaintiff seeks to discover all its contents. Additionally, Defendant argues
that it is legally prohibited by FERPA and IDEA from disclosing any sensitive
information about students, and simply issuing a protective order, as Plaintiff
argues, will not resolve this issue. Finally, Defendant contends that even if
the Court orders it to produce the documents, sanctions are unwarranted because
Defendant acted with justification in opposing the production of the documents.
MOVING
PARTY’S REPLY
Plaintiff
mainly restates the arguments that he made in his original motion.
ANALYSIS
Motion to
Compel Further Responses
The CCP
entitles parties to 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.” (CCP § 2017.010.)
Requests
Related to Howard Cheung’s Personnel File
Plaintiff’s Requests that are
related to Howard Cheung’s Personnel File are Requests Nos. 8-12 and 17.
Public employees, like all
other citizens, have a constitutional right to privacy in California. (Long
Beach City Emps. Ass’n v. City of Long Beach (1986) 41 Cal. 3d 937, 951-52;
Cal. Const. art. I, § 1.) As such, public employees also have “a legally
protected interest in their personnel files.” (BRV, Inc. v. Superior Court
(2006) 143 Cal. App. 4th 742, 756.)
Although the right to privacy
is not “absolute,” (Vinson v. Superior Court (1987) 43 Cal. 3d 833,
842-43), it may only be abridged when there is a compelling and opposing state
interest. (Long Beach City Emps. Ass’n, 41 Cal. 3d at pp. 951-52; Britt
v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal. 3d 844, 855; Santa Barbara v. Adamson
(1980) 27 Cal. 3d 123, 130.) “In an effort to reconcile these sometimes
competing public values, it has been adjudged that inquiry into one’s private
affairs will not be constitutionally justified simply because inadmissible, and
irrelevant, matter sought to be discovered might lead to other, and relevant,
evidence. (Bd. of Trs. v. Superior Court of Santa Clara Cnty. (1981) 119
Cal. App. 3d 516, 525-26, overruled on other grounds in Williams v. Superior
Court (2017) 3 Cal. 5th 531.) In other words, “[w]hen compelled disclosure
intrudes on constitutionally protected areas, it cannot be justified solely on
the ground that it may lead to relevant information.” (Morales v. Superior
Court (1979) 99 Cal. App. 3d 283, 289.)
“And even when discovery of
private information is found directly relevant to the issues of ongoing
litigation, it will not be automatically allowed; there must then be a ‘careful
balancing’ of the ‘compelling public need’ for discovery against the
‘fundamental right of privacy.’” (Bd. of Trs., 119 Cal. App. 3d at pp. 525-26.)
“Even where the balance, because of a compelling state purpose, weighs in favor
of disclosure of private information, the scope of such disclosure will be
narrowly circumscribed; such an invasion of the right of privacy must be drawn
with narrow specificity.” (Id.)
Here, there may be relevant
information to be found in Mr. Cheung’s personnel file. However, as it stands
now, Plaintiff’s request for the entire file is overly broad and could infringe
upon private, irrelevant information that is also contained in Mr. Cheung’s
personnel file. The balancing test weighs in favor of privacy. As such, without
significant modification to his requests regarding the personnel file, the
Court cannot grant Plaintiff’s requests.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s
requests for further responses as to Request Nos. 8-12 and 17 are DENIED.
Requests
Related to Student Information
Plaintiff’s requests related
to Student Information are Requests Nos. 10-12 and 45 (choir rosters).
The Family Educational Rights
and Privacy Act (“FERPA”) protects against violations of students’ privacy by
unauthorized releases of sensitive information in their educational records. (20
U.S.C. § 1232g; 34 CFR Part 99.) Under the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act (“IDEA”), disabled students and their parents are entitled to the
confidentiality of any personally identifiable data, information, and records
collected or maintained by state and local education agencies. (20 U.S.C.S. §§
1412(a)(8), 1417(c); 34 C.F.R. 300.560-577.)
The IDEA and FERPA both
prohibit dissemination of educational records to third parties without parental
consent. The IDEA requires that schools take appropriate action, in accordance
with FERPA, to protect “the confidentiality of any personally identifiable
data, information, and records collected or maintained by the [school].” (20
U.S.C. § 1417(c).) Under regulations promulgated pursuant to IDEA, parental
consent “must be obtained” before personally identifiable information is
disclosed to third parties. (34 C.F.R. § 300.622(a); 20 U.S.C. § 1232g(b)(1).)
“Personally identifiable information” includes, without limitation, the
students’ names, names of their parents or other family members, the addresses
of the students or their family, any personal identifiers such as social
security numbers or student numbers, a list of personal characteristics that
would make the students’ identities easily traceable or any other information
that would make the students’ identities easily traceable. (20 U.S.C. § 1232g;
34 C.F.R. § 99.3.) California Education Code section 49061 provides similarly.
Here, this law thus prohibits
Defendant from disclosing student names and other identifiable information
without parental consent and, contrary to Plaintiff’s arguments, simply issuing
a protective order will not resolve this issue. It is possible that some
information may be discoverable if Plaintiff revises his requests. However, as
it stands now, the Court cannot grant this request.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s
requests for further responses to Nos. 10-12 and 45 are DENIED.
The Court notes that
Defendant did not oppose Request No. 44, related to employee rosters for the
choir program, in its opposition. If it is Defendant’s intention not to oppose
this request, then the Court would order Defendant to provide a response to
this request.
Sanctions
“[T]he court shall impose a monetary sanction . . . against
any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to
compel further response to a demand, unless it finds that the one subject to
the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances
make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.310(h).)
Defendant successfully opposed the motion to compel
further responses. As such, the Court declines to award any sanctions.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is DENIED.
CONCLUSION
Plaintiff’s
motion to compel further responses is denied. Plaintiff’s request for sanctions
is denied.