Judge: Elaine Lu, Case: 20STCV13096, Date: 2023-05-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV13096    Hearing Date: May 17, 2023    Dept: 26

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 26

Procedural Background                                    

On April 2, 2020, Plaintiffs A.R., a minor, and C. R., a minor, by and through their Guardian ad Litem, Alicia Ramos Acosta (“Plaintiffs”) filed the instant negligence action against defendants County of Los Angeles, Nora Montesdoeoca,[1] Erica Sanchez, West Covina Foster Family Agency dba Homes of Hope (“Homes of Hope”),[2] Jose Medina, and Lorena Medina.  The complaint alleges eight causes of action for (1) Negligence - Liability of Employees; Liability of Public Entity Respondeat Superior, (2) Negligence - Liability of Public Entity, (3) Negligent Hiring, Supervision, and Retention, (4) Negligence – Homes of Hope, (5) Sexual Battery, (6) Battery, (7) Assault, and (8) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress.

            On April 25, 2023, Defendants County of Los Angeles (“DCFS”) and Erica Sanchez (“Sanchez”) (jointly “Moving Defendants”) filed the instant motion to depose inmate and co-defendant Jose Cruz Medina.  On May 8, 2023, the Court granted Moving Defendants’ ex parte application in part and advanced the instant motion to be heard on May 17, 2023.  The Court ordered any opposition to be filed by May 12, 2023 and any reply was to be filed by May 15, 2023.  (Minute Order 5/8/23.)  No opposition or reply has been filed apart from the Opposition to Defendants’ Ex Parte Application that Plaintiffs filed on May 5. 2023.

Allegations of the Operative Complaint

The complaint alleges as follows:

Plaintiffs A.R. and C.R. are sisters and were minors under the care of the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (“DCFS”).  (Complaint ¶ 15.)  “Plaintiffs A.R. and C.R. were transferred to DCFS in or about October 2012. DCFS then placed A.R. and C.R. with HOMES OF HOPE, and then directly with foster parents LORENA MEDINA and JOSE MEDINA.”  (Id. ¶ 20.)  DCFS and Homes of Hope had knowledge and were on notice that Jose Medina had abused other minor children whom they had placed in his home before 2012 but failed to investigate the allegations.  (Id. ¶ 21.)

“From 2012 through 2014, JOSE MEDINA sexually abused, assaulted, attacked, molested and raped A.R. and C.R. At all relevant times herein, Defendant JOSE MEDINA abused and molested Plaintiffs while under the supervision of DCFS and HOMES OF HOPE and while the Plaintiffs were under his care in his home while he was acting as their foster parent from October 2012 through 2014.”  (Id. ¶ 22.)

“On or about August 6, 2013, Plaintiffs A.R. and C.R. underwent medical examinations for suspected sexual abuse after A.R. had complained of pain while urinating and itching to the buttock area. As a result of these examinations, the examining physician notified the DCFS and DOES 1 through 50, including Director Philip Browning, Chief Deputy Director Brandon Nichols, and Defendants MONTESDOEOCA and SANCHEZ, that the examinations indicated that possible incidents of child sexual abuse were an explanation for the physical findings, evidence and complaints that required follow-up investigation.”  (Id. ¶ 23.)

“On or about May 7, 2019, A.R. reported to her mother, Alicia Ramos Acosta, that Defendant JOSE MEDINA had sexually molested her and C.R. Thereafter, Alicia Ramos Acosta contacted her case worker Nancy Trejo Benavides and reported the abuse by Defendant JOSE MEDINA. The sexual abuse was reported to DCFS and the Los Angeles County Sherriff’s Department with a criminal complaint filed by the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s office against JOSE MEDINA. Defendant JOSE MEDINA (DOB September 13, 1957) has been criminally charged with violations of various subdivisions of Penal Code §288 and §288.7 for sexually molesting A.R. and C.R. while acting as the foster parent of Plaintiffs placed in his home by DCFS and HOMES OF HOPE. (Pomona Superior Court Case No. KA121888.)”  (Id. ¶ 24.)

“Plaintiffs are informed and believe that because of the small size of the Medina house and the husband/wife relationship of JOSE MEDINA and LORENA MEDINA, and her respective duties owed to Plaintiffs as foster parent, that LORENA MEDINA knew or should have known that JOSE MEDINA was abusing and sexually molesting the Plaintiffs, and she failed to report or stop his conduct.”  (Id. ¶ 25.)

Legal Standard

            Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1995, “[i]f the witness be a prisoner, confined in a jail within this state, an order for his examination in the jail upon deposition, or for his temporary removal and production before a court or officer may be made as follows:

[¶] 1. By the court itself in which the action or special proceeding is pending, unless it be a small claims court. [¶] By a justice of the Supreme Court, or a judge of the superior court of the county where the action or proceeding is pending, if pending before a small claims court, or before a judge or other person out of court.”  (CCP § 1995.) 

            “Code of Civil Procedure section 1996 provides that a court may order the deposition of a prisoner upon a motion supported by an ‘affidavit showing ... the testimony expected from the witness, and its materiality.’ (Code Civ. Proc., § 1996.)”  (Cadiz Land Co., Inc. v. Rail Cycle, L.P. (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 74, 121.)

Discussion

            Moving Defendants seek to depose co-defendant Jose Cruz Medina who is currently incarcerated in Avenal State Prison California Men’s Colony located at Colony Dr., San Luis Obispo, CA 93409.  (Ohene Decl. ¶ 3.) 

            “On May 11, 2022, Mr. Medina was sentenced to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation for fourteen years. He has been incarcerated at California Men’s Colony since May 11, 2022.”  (Ohene Decl. ¶ 3.)  Jose Cruz Medina, a co-defendant in the instant action along with his wife, co-defendant Lorena Medina, were former foster parents for Plaintiffs.  (Ohene Decl. ¶ 2.)  Jose Cruz Medina’s sexual assault of Plaintiffs forms the basis for this civil action, and therefore, Moving Defendants contend that his “deposition is necessary for a full and complete investigation and evaluation of the plaintiffs’ claims and the defenses available to the County.”  (Ohene Decl. ¶ 2.) 

“Mr. Medina is expected to testify as to the nature of his relationships with the plaintiffs, the circumstances under which the abuses took place, whether the defendants knew or should have known about the abuses, and whether there was anything the defendants could have done to prevent the abuses from happening.”  (Motion at p.4:4-7.)

            As a co-defendant in the instant action and whose conduct forms the underlying basis for the instant action, Jose Cruz Medina’s testimony does appear to be relevant and indeed could be crucial to the instant action.  Accordingly, the Court finds that Moving Defendants have shown that the deposition of inmate Jose Cruz Medina is warranted.

Conclusion and ORDER

Based on the foregoing, Defendants County of Los Angeles and Erica Sanchez’s motion to depose inmate Jose Cruz Medina - California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation Number BS6021 – is GRANTED.

Moving Defendants are to schedule and take Jose Cruz Medina’s deposition at California Men’s Colony within fifteen (15) days of notice of this order.

From reviewing the docket, the Court notes that Defendants have filed 27 motions in limine, and Plaintiffs have filed one motion in limine.  The Court finds that the parties' meet and confer efforts in regard to the pending motions in limine are inadequate.  The Court orders the parties to meet and confer in good faith by real-time conversation regarding all pending motions in limine and all anticipated motions in limine that have not yet been filed.  (An exchange of emails or correspondence will not suffice.)  The meet and confer must be in person or by telephone or videoconference and must occur within 7 days – no later than May 24, 2023.

Following the meet and confer, the parties are ordered to file one joint statement setting forth the date, manner, and duration of the meet and confer, as well as the outcome, including whether any of the MILs have been mooted because stipulations have been reached.  If there are any unresolved motions in limine, the parties’ joint statement must list each motion in limine still in dispute, and under each motion in limine must: (a) identify the precise evidence that the moving party seeks to exclude, (b) explain in 2-3 sentences why the moving party is of the view that the evidence should be excluded, including a citation to the one or two best authority (either statutory or caselaw) supporting why such evidence should be excluded, and (c)  explain in 2-3 sentences why the opposing party is of the view that the evidence should be allowed including a citation to the one or two best authority (either statutory or caselaw) supporting why such evidence should be admitted.  The joint statement must be electronically no later than May 25, 2023, with a courtesy copy delivered to Department 26 on the same day as filing.

The Court reminds the parties that in addition to the joint statements ordered above, per this Court’s standing order on Final Status Conferences, all moving, opposition, and reply papers for all motions in limine must be timely filed pursuant to CCP section 1005(b) with the FSC as the hearing date, i.e., 16 court days, 9 court days, and 5 court days respectively before the FSC. 

No later than May 26, 2023, each party must also deliver a binder containing all of that party’s motions in limine in conformity with this Court’s standing order on Final Status Conferences.  The motions in limine must be in numeric sequence in the binder and must each have a tab.  The moving, opposition, and reply papers must be separated by a brightly colored sheet of papers.

Failure to comply with this order may result in the motion in limine being taken off calendar.  However, in that event, all parties may of course still make their evidentiary objections at trial.

Moving Parties are to give notice and file proof of service of such.

DATED:  May 17, 2023                                                         ___________________________

Elaine Lu

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court