Judge: Joseph Lipner, Case: 22STCV36148, Date: 2024-05-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV36148    Hearing Date: May 28, 2024    Dept: 72

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

DEPARTMENT 72

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff John Doe A.P. (“Plaintiff”) moves for an order compelling the California Commission on Teacher Credentialling (the “Commission”), a non-party, to release unredacted records subpoenaed by Plaintiff related to investigation of alleged misconduct and violations of now-dismissed Defendant Eduardo Xavier Yanez.

The Commission shall disclose unredacted versions of the documents with Bates Nos. CTC0019, CTC0024, CTC0030, CTC0035, CTC0043, CTC0051, CTC0058, CTC0063 and CTC0086, except that it will redact Yanez’s social security number, date of birth, and other identifying personal information that does not pertain to his character and fitness.

Moreover, the documents shall be kept confidential by Plaintiff and used solely for purposes of this litigation.  The Court notes that Plaintiff has expressed a willingness to stipulate to a protective order; the Court would enter a stipulated protective order if one is presented. 

Background

This is a childhood sexual assault case. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Yanez, during his employment as a teacher at Defendant Los Angeles Unified School District (“LAUSD”), committed acts of sexual abuse against Plaintiff during the 1981 school year, when Plaintiff was a minor student at LAUSD.

Around 1997, Yanez was convicted of sexual abuse of another minor.

In around 1997 or 1998, the Commission suspended and subsequently revoked Yanez’s teaching credentials.

Plaintiff filed this action against Doe 1 and Doe 2 on November 15, 2022, raising claims for (1) childhood sexual abuse; (2) intentional infliction of emotional distress (“IIED”); (3) negligent hiring, supervision, and retention of unfit employee under Government Code, sections 815.2 and 820; (4) failure to report suspected child abuse under Government Code, sections 815.2 and 820; (5) negligent supervision of a minor; and (6) negligence.

LAUSD was named as a defendant by Doe amendment on April 21, 2023. Yanez was named as a defendant by Doe amendment on April 27, 2023.

On July 14, 2023, Yanez was dismissed from this action per Plaintiff’s request.

On January 4, 2024, Plaintiff served a subpoena on the Commission, seeking documents relating to investigations on Yanez.

On February 5, 2024, the Commission responded, objecting to the subpoena but providing responsive documents. Portions of the documents were redacted, portions of Yanez’s application to the Commission concerning Yanez’s attestations related to his personal and professional fitness. The Commission explained that its policy is not to produce any of the redacted information absent a court order.

Legal Standard

Any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action or to the determination of any motion made in that action, if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2017.010.) Discovery may relate to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or of any other party to the action. (Ibid.) Courts have given the words “subject matter” a broad definition that is not limited to only admissible evidence. (Jessen v. Hartford Casualty Ins. Co. (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 698, 711.) Accordingly, information is relevant for discovery purposes if it might reasonably assist a party in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement. (Id. at pgs. 711–712.) Admissibility is not the test and information, unless privileged, is discoverable if it might reasonably lead to admissible evidence. (Gonzalez v. Super. Ct. (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1539, 1546.) These rules are applied liberally in favor of discovery and “fishing expeditions” are permissible in some cases. (Ibid.) 

“Any party may obtain discovery…by taking in California the oral deposition of any person, including any party to the action. The person deposed may be a natural person, an organization such as a public or private corporation, a partnership, an association, or a governmental agency.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.010.) "Except as provided in subdivision (a) of Section 2025.280 the process by which a nonparty is required to provide discovery is a deposition subpoena." (Code Civ. Proc., §2020.010, subd. (b).

“A deposition subpoena may command any of the following:

(a) Only the attendance and the testimony of the deponent, under Article 3 (commencing with Section 2020.310).

(b) Only the production of business records for copying, under Article 4 (commencing with Section 2020.410).

(c) The attendance and the testimony of the deponent, as well as the production of business records, other documents, electronically stored information, and tangible things, under Article 5 (commencing with Section 2020.510).”

(Code Civ. Proc., § 2020.020.)

Discussion

            Absent a court order, the Commission “may disclose, only the following information relating to the credentials, certificates, permits, or other documents that it issues: the document number, title, term of validity, subjects, authorizations, effective dates, renewal requirements, and restrictions. The commission may also disclose the last known business address of any applicant or credential holder.” (Ed. Code, § 44230, subd. (a).)

Plaintiff’s motion seeks the complete unredacted version of certain documents described as Bates Nos. CTC0019, CTC0024, CTC0030, CTC0035, CTC0043, CTC0051, CTC0058, CTC0063 and CTC0086.

A teacher’s disciplinary records are generally discoverable in child sex abuse cases. (Marken v. Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 1250, 1259.) Such facts are relevant to the plaintiff’s claims, and the public’s interest in misconduct by teachers outweighs the potential harm to the teacher’s privacy interests. (Ibid.) Although the ultimate issue in this case is LAUSD’s awareness, or lack thereof, of Yanez’s unfitness, the Commission’s records may lead to discoverable information to that effect. The disciplinary records in question are therefore prima facie discoverable.

The Commission argues that the records may not be admissible because they are not all business records. Material need not be admissible to be discoverable.

LAUSD and the Commission argue that the records are protected by the deliberative process privilege.

“Under the deliberative process privilege, senior officials of all three branches of government enjoy a qualified, limited privilege not to disclose or to be examined concerning not only the mental processes by which a given decision was reached, but the substance of conversations, discussions, debates, deliberations and like materials reflecting advice, opinions, and recommendations by which government policy is processed and formulated.” (San Joaquin County Local Agency Formation Commission v. Superior Court (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 159, 170.) “The key question in every case is whether the disclosure of materials would expose an agency's decisionmaking process in such a way as to discourage candid discussion within the agency and thereby undermine the agency's ability to perform its functions.” (Times Mirror Co. v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 1325, 1342 [citation and quotation marks omitted].)

As discussed above, the public has an interest in the fitness of public-school teachers that permits the discovery of disciplinary records in child sex abuse cases. (Marken v. Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District, supra, 202 Cal.App.4th at p. 1259.) This holding carries an implicit determination that a limited exposure of the agency’s internal processes is justified for the purposes of such a case.  There has been no showing that such a limited exposure would discourage candid discussions within the agency. 

While it appears that the unredacted versions of CTC0019, CTC0024, CTC0030, CTC0035, CTC0043, CTC0051, CTC0058, CTC0063 and CTC0086 are discoverable, the Court does believe that there are limited privacy concerns. The Court orders that the Commission disclose unredacted versions of the documents, except that it will redact Yanez’s social security number, date of birth, and other identifying personal information that does not pertain to his character and fitness. Plaintiff shall keep these documents confidential and shall not use them for any other purpose except for this lawsuit.