Judge: John J. Kralik, Case: 22BBCV00562, Date: 2023-06-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22BBCV00562    Hearing Date: June 23, 2023    Dept: NCB

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

North Central District

Department B

BACKGROUND

A.    Allegations

Plaintiff John Doe alleges that he is an adult male who was born in 1980.  He alleges that he was a victim of childhood sexual assault in 1988 when he was approximately 8 years old when he attended the after-school day care program facilitated and organized by Defendants Does 1, 2, and/or 4-20.  He alleges that he was a victim of unlawful childhood sexual assault and molestation and other conduct by Defendant Doe 3, while Doe 3 was an employee and/or agent of Does 1, 2, and/or 4-60.  Plaintiff alleges that Doe 3 was employed as the driver and after-school youth director and/or counselor for the Youth Program.

The complaint, filed August 4, 2022, alleges causes of action for: (1) sexual assault against Doe 3; (2) IIED against Doe 3; (3) negligence against Does 1, 2, and 4-60; (4) negligent hiring, supervision, and retention against Does 1, 2, and 4-60; (5) failure to report suspected child abuse against Does 1, 2, and 4-60; and (6) negligence against Does 41-50. 

B.     Motion on Calendar

On May 12, 2023, Defendant Doe #3 George Loya (“Defendant”) filed a motion to quash subpoena of records. 

On June 9, 2023, Plaintiff filed an opposition brief.  

On June 20, 2023, Defendant filed a reply brief.

DISCUSSION

            Defendant moves to quash service of the subpoena of records issued and served by USA Express Legal & Investigative Services, Inc. for the production of records from the City Clerk’s Office – City of Burbank pertaining to criminal action from 1989 relating to Defendant.  Defense counsel, Patricia Rodriguez, states that she served and filed objections to the subpoena on May 12, 2023. 

Defendant argues that the subpoena is meant to harass him because the criminal matter (People of the State of California v. George Ronald Loya, case no. 89M01424) occurred 24 years ago and is not relevant to the action as it is separate and unrelated to the current civil case.  Defendant argues that the requested records contain sensitive personal information involving third-party privacy rights of those who were not involved in this current action.  He argues that the subpoena would also cause undue burden and cost because locating, retrieving, and producing such vintage records over 24 years ago would be substantial.  Defendant argues that using records from an old criminal case would be improper, unfair, and prejudicial to Defendant and would amount to an unreasonable search and seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment. 

            In opposition, Plaintiff argues that the sexual assault he is alleging in this action occurred in 1988 and Defendant was surrendered to the Burbank Police Department on April 18, 1989 after a judge issued a warrant accusing him of molesting 2 young boys, including Plaintiff at Doe 1’s facility.  Plaintiff states that on April 20, 2023, he issued the subject deposition subpoena seeking: “Any and all DOCUMENTS and things relating to unlawful sexual conduct and molestation of minors by George Loya (DOB XX/XX/1963), including, but not limited to, the entire unredacted criminal investigative file and/or files, all evidence, reports, supplemental reports, witness statements, photographs, audio recordings, video recordings, and forensic interviews, including all documents relating to Yuba [sic] County Superior Court Criminal Case No. 89M01424 People of the State of California v. George Ronald Loya.”  (Opp. at p.1.) 

            Plaintiff argues that the information sought is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence because the criminal file related to Defendant’s sexual molestation of children, including Plaintiff, while at Defendants’ premises.  He argues that the file will likely include witness statements, reports, statements from other victims, witnesses, and even Defendant himself.  Plaintiff argues that he is unable to obtain this evidence from any other source since the documents are over 20 years old and witness recollection may fade over time.  He argues that he will suffer prejudice and irreparable harm if the subpoena is quashed because he will not have relevant evidence that exists to support his claims against Defendant and the facility Defendants.  Plaintiff argues that to the extent any private information is in the file, such concerns can be addressed with a protective order, which Plaintiff is willing to enter into.

            The subpoena request is sufficiently narrowly tailored and specific to seek the documents related to Defendant’s prior criminal case.  While the file pertains to a case that occurred nearly 24 years ago, the statute of limitations for individuals like Plaintiff to bring these sexual assault cases was extended.  As a result, this will inevitably lead to the necessity of parties and third parties having to delve into old documents.  While Defendant argues that allowing this subpoena to go forward would cause unnecessary burden and cost, there will always been some burden associated with the act of discovery.  (See West Pico Furniture Co. of Los Angeles v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 407, 418 [“[S]ome burden is inherent in all demands for discovery. The objection of burden is valid only when that burden is demonstrated to result in injustice.”].)  To justify an objection that the discovery is unduly burdensome, the objecting party must show the quantum of work required.  (Id. at 417.)  Defendant argues that it would be difficult and costly for staff members to conduct a search of the documents, but Defendant has not stated the basis for his arguments and has not provided a declaration from the City Clerk’s Office to this effect.  (In the reply brief, Defendant argues that the City of Burbank objected to the subpoena on May 5, 2023 based on relevance, overbreadth, and privacy concerns. [Reply at p.2.] However, the Court is not in receipt of this objection from the City nor a declaration from the City regarding whether producing these files would be overly burdensome.). 

            Although Defendant argues that the documents in the file are not relevant, would be highly prejudicial, and would violate third-party privacy rights, Plaintiff states that the criminal case involved two minors, one of which included Plaintiff.  By way of the subpoena and his opposition papers, Plaintiff is consenting to the production of the documents by the City regarding a case he was a part of.  As to the other minor or any other personal/privileged information, Plaintiff has suggested and states that he is willing to agree to a protective order.  A protective order would adequately protect the interests of Defendant and any third parties.

            Finally, to the extent that the information in the documents would be highly prejudicial to Defendant, Defendant may file motions in limine near the time of trial to address these concerns.  However, at this stage of the proceedings, the information sought appears to be relevant and reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, as it pertains to this action and Defendant’s employment with the YMCA. 

            Thus, the motion to quash is denied.  The parties are ordered to meet and confer regarding an appropriate protective order.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

            Defendant Doe #3 George Loya’s motion to quash the subpoena is denied.

Defendant shall provide notice of this order.