Judge Kerry Bensinger, Case Number: 22STCV38285, Date: 2025-02-03 Tentative Ruling

Counsel may submit on the tentative ruling by emailing Dept. 31 before 8:30 the morning of the hearing. The email address is smcdept31@lacourt.org. Please do not call the court to submit on the tentative. Please do not submit to the tentative ruling on behalf of the opposing party. Please do not e-mail the Court if you plan to appear and argue.

In deciding whether to submit on the tentative ruling or attend the hearing and present oral argument, please keep the following in mind:

The tentative rulings authored by this court reflect that the court has read and considered all pleadings and evidence timely submitted to the court in connection with the motion, opposition, and reply (if any). Because the pleadings were filed, they are part of the public record.

Oral argument is not an opportunity to simply regurgitate that which a party set forth in its pleadings. Nor, is oral argument an opportunity to "make a record" when there is no court reporter present and the statements and arguments of counsel are already part of the record because they were set forth in the pleadings. Finally, simply because a party or attorney disagrees with the court's analysis and ruling or is not satisfied with it does not necessarily warrant oral argument when no new arguments will be articulated.

If you submit on the tentative, you must immediately notify all other parties email that you will not appear at the hearing. If you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the motions. If all parties to the motion submit, this tentative ruling will become the final ruling after the hearing date and it will be memorialized in a minute order. This tentative ruling is not an invitation, nor an opportunity, to file further documents relative to the hearing in question. No such document will be considered by the Court.

**Tentative rulings on Motions for Summary Judgment will only be available for review in the courtroom on the day of the hearing.

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT TO PROVIDE FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION TESTIMONY AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS FROM DEFENDANT LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT’S PERSON MOST KNOWLEDGEABLE

This is a childhood sexual abuse case. Plaintiff John Doe 101 (Plaintiff) was a student at Thomas Jefferson High School (TJ High School) from 1978 to 1980. TJ High School was and continues to be operated by defendant Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD). Plaintiff alleges that during his time at TJ High School, LAUSD employee Norman Morris (Morris) began a sexual relationship with Plaintiff and hosted sex parties in which other school staff and Plaintiff participated. Those persons included “Hayes”, a principal or vice principal of TJ High School, Plaintiff’s driver’s education teacher “Chappel”. Plaintiff also alleges that Dean Charles Dumas also knew of Morris, Hayes, and Chappel’s conduct. Plaintiff, a minor at all relevant times, could not consent to the inappropriate acts and relationships.

Before the court are two motions brought by Plaintiff: (1) Motion to Compel Defendant LAUSD’s Further Response to Request for Production of Documents, and (2) Motion to Compel Deposition Testimony and Production of Documents from Defendant LAUSD’s Person Most Knowledgeable. The court addresses the motions in turn.

On June 20, 2023, Plaintiff served LAUSD with Request for Production of Documents (RFP), Set One. As relevant here, on September 28, 2023, LAUSD served a blanket objection to RFP No. 36. Plaintiff took issue with the LAUSD’s objection to RFP No. 36.

On August 13, 2024, the parties participated at an informal discovery conference (“IDC”) with the court concerning the dispute regarding RFP No. 36. The issues were not resolved.

On September 30, 2024, Plaintiff filed this motion to compel LAUSD’s further response to RFP No. 36. Plaintiff does not seek sanctions.

Under Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310, parties may move for a further response to requests for production of documents¿where an answer to the requests are evasive or incomplete or where an objection is without merit or too general.¿ A motion to compel further response to requests for production “shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the inspection demand.”¿ (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b)(1).)¿¿

Notice of the motion must be given within 45 days of service of the verified response, otherwise, the propounding party waives any right to compel a further response.¿ (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (c).)¿ The motion must also be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration.¿ (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b)(2).)

¿¿¿¿ Finally, California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1345 requires that all motions or responses involving further discovery contain a separate statement with the text of each request, the response, and a statement of factual and legal reasons for compelling further responses.¿ (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(a)(3).)¿¿¿

Plaintiff seeks a further response to RFP No. 36. That request seeks the following:

Any and all DOCUMENTS concerning all complaints, investigations, claims, actions, administrative proceedings, lawsuits, or other grievance processes concerning allegations of sexual assault of a child by a LAUSD employee at TJ High School from 1978 to 1980.

Objection. Responding Party objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, and overly broad in its entirety. Responding Party objects to this request on the grounds that it fails to describe the type of documents requested with reasonable particularity in violation of Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.030. Responding Party objects to this request on the grounds that it is overbroad and unduly burdensome in that it is not limited by any reasonable timeframe or subject matter and seeks production of documents from over 40 years ago. Responding Party objects to this request on the grounds that it lacks foundation, assumes facts, and calls for speculation. Responding Party objects to this request on the grounds that it calls for information that is protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product doctrine, the deliberative process privilege, and/or official information privilege.

Responding Party objects to this request to the extent it seeks information subject to the right of privacy protected by Article 1, Section 1, of the California Constitution, the Federal Constitution, and applicable case law. Responding Party also objects to this request to the extent it seeks information contained within the Personnel File or Records of a Public Employee, which information is protected from disclosure by the California Government Code §6254 et seq. and other applicable federal and state laws and regulations. Responding Party also objects to this request on the grounds it seeks information protected by and/or invasive of constitutional, statutory, and common law rights of confidentiality. Responding Party further objects to this request to the extent it seeks disclosure of confidential, private student information. Responding Party objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks information which is neither relevant to the subject matter of this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2017.010.)

Citing Lopez v. Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc. (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 566, Plaintiff argues a further response is warranted because RFP No. 36 is directly relevant and related to issues of notice; negligent hiring/supervision/retention; ratification; failure to enforce policies and train; failure to document prior complaints; failure to prevent; failure to discipline; and failure to investigate.

The court disagrees. The relevant issue is whether LAUSD had knowledge of Morris, Hayes, Chappell, and Dumas’s propensity for sexual misconduct. As drafted, RFP No. 36 is designed to seek information far exceeding any of the conduct by these four actors. Further, Plaintiff’s reliance on Lopez is misplaced. In Lopez, the Court of Appeal found the documents sought in that case were potentially relevant to Lopez’s punitive damages claim, including the reprehensibility of Watchtower’s actions. (Lopez, at p. 592.) By contrast, Plaintiff does not (and cannot) press a claim for punitive damages against LAUSD. (See Gov. Code, § 818.)

In reply, Plaintiff maintains that courts have compelled production of sexual misconduct complaints—pre and post abuse—in a school setting. Plaintiff, however, does not provide the court with such authority. In the absence of authority, and guided by the issues raised by Plaintiff’s pleading, the court finds RFP No. 36 is overbroad. Accordingly, RFP No. 36 is limited to documents concerning Morris, Hayes, Chappell and Dumas for the time period of 1975 to 1985. LAUSD is to provide a privilege log.

The motion to compel further is Granted in Part. RFP No. 36 is limited to production of documents concerning LASUD employees Morris, Hayes, Chappell, and Dumas for the time period of 1975 to 1985. LAUSD is the provide a further response, along with a privilege log, within 45 days of this order.

Plaintiff noticed the deposition of LAUSD’s person most knowledgeable for February 21, 2024. Plaintiff also requested a production of documents.

On February 14, 2024, LAUSD objected to PMK categories Nos. 6 and 7 and PMK RFP Nos. 6 and 7, and refused to permit its PMK to testify or produce documents in response to those topics and RFPs.

Meet and confer efforts and participation in an IDC with the court did not resolve the issues.

On September 30, 2024, Plaintiff filed this motion to compel LAUSD’s PMK to testify on PMK category nos. 6 and 7 and to produce documents for PMK RFP nos. 6 and 7.

Any party may obtain discovery by taking in California the oral deposition of any person.¿ (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.010.)¿ “If, after service of a deposition notice, a party to the action…without having served a valid objection under Section 2025.410, fails to appear for examination, or to proceed with it, or to produce for inspection any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice, the party giving the notice may move for an order compelling the deponent’s attendance and testimony, and the production for inspection of any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice.”¿ (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (a).)¿¿¿¿¿

Plaintiff seeks to compel LAUSD’s PMK to testify on PMK category nos. 6 and 7 and to produce documents for PMK RFP nos. 6 and 7. The court addresses them in turn.

PMK Category No. 6: Any and all allegations, complaints, or concerns raised by any person regarding any inappropriate and/or sexual interactions between staff and/or volunteers and students at Thomas Jefferson High School, including any investigations done and corrective actions taken.

PMK Category No. 7: LAUSD’S investigations (including the actions taken during the investigations, the findings/results/conclusions of the investigations, and any and all corrective actions taken as a result of the findings of the investigations) into any and all complaints, allegations, concerns raised, or issues raised, of alleged inappropriate behavior by staff and/or volunteers, including alleged sexual conduct, to LAUSD regarding anyone affiliated with Thomas Jefferson High School.

LAUSD’s Response to PMK Category Nos. 6 and 7: Objection. Defendant objects to this category on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, and overly broad in its entirety. Defendant objects to this category on the grounds that it is overbroad and unduly burdensome in that it is not limited by any reasonable timeframe or subject matter. Defendant objects to this category on the grounds that it seeks information which is neither relevant to the subject matter of this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2017.010.) Defendant objects to this category on the grounds and to the extent it calls for

information protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product doctrine, the

deliberative process privilege, and/or official information privilege. Defendant objects to this category on the grounds and to the extent it seeks information subject to the right of privacy protected by Article 1, Section 1, of the California Constitution, the Federal Constitution, and applicable case law. Defendant objects to this category on the grounds that it seeks information over which various rights of privacy exist, including, but not limited to, information contained within the Personnel File or Records of a Public Employee that is protected from disclosure by the California Government Code § 7921 et seq. and other applicable federal and state laws and regulations. Defendant also objects to this category to the extent it seeks the names and contact information of LAUSD students that are statutorily protected under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act 20 U.S.C. §1232g (hereinafter referred to as “FERPA”), Health Insurance Portability Accountability Act (hereinafter referred to as “HIPAA”), the California Education Code, LAUSD Policy Bulletin 1077.1, and other Federal and State statutes. Defendant further objects to this category on the grounds it seeks information protected by and/or invasive of constitutional, statutory, and common law rights of confidentiality.

Court’s Ruling on PMK Category Nos. 6 and 7: Granted in Part. The court limits PMK category nos. 6 and 7 to Morris, Hayes, Chappell, and Dumas for the time period of 1975 to 1985.

PMK RFP No. 6: Any and all DOCUMENTS regarding any and all allegations, complaints, or concerns raised by any person regarding any inappropriate and/or sexual interactions between staff and/or volunteers and students at Thomas Jefferson High School, including any investigations done and corrective actions taken.

PMK RFP No. 7: Any and all DOCUMENTS regarding LAUSD’S investigations (including the actions taken during the investigations, the findings/results/conclusions of the investigations, and any and all corrective actions taken as a result of the findings of the investigations) into any and all complaints, allegations, concerns raised, or issues raised, of alleged inappropriate behavior by staff and/or volunteers, including alleged sexual conduct, to LAUSD regarding anyone affiliated with Thomas Jefferson High School.

LAUSD’s Response to PMK RFP Nos. 6 and 7: Objection. Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, and overly broad in its entirety. Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overbroad and unduly burdensome in that it is not limited to any reasonable time frame or subject matter. Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it lacks foundation, assumes facts not in evidence, and calls for speculation. Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it fails to describe the type of documents requested with reasonable particularity in violation of Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.030. Defendant objects to this request on the grounds and to the extent that it calls for information that is protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product doctrine, the deliberative process privilege, and/or official information privilege. Defendant objects to this request on the grounds and to the extent that it calls for the premature disclosure of expert witness information and documents in violation Code of Civil Procedure section 2034, et seq. Defendant objects to this request on the grounds and to the extent it seeks information subject to the right of privacy protected by Article 1, Section 1, of the California Constitution, the Federal Constitution, and applicable case law. Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks information over which various rights of privacy exist, including, but not limited to, information contained within the Personnel File or Records of a Public Employee that is protected from disclosure by the California Government Code § 7921 et seq. and other applicable federal and state laws and regulations. Defendant also objects to this request to the extent it seeks the names and contact information of LAUSD students that are statutorily protected under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act 20 U.S.C. §1232g (hereinafter referred to as “FERPA”), Health Insurance Portability Accountability Act (hereinafter referred to as “HIPAA”), the California Education Code, LAUSD Policy Bulletin 1077.1, and other Federal and State statutes. Defendant further objects to this request to the extent it seeks information protected by and/or invasive of constitutional, statutory, and common law rights of confidentiality. Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks information which is neither relevant to the subject matter of this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2017.010.)

Court’s Ruling on PMK RFP Nos. 6 and 7: Granted in Part. The court limits PMK RFP nos. 6 and 7 to Morris, Hayes, Chappell, and Dumas for the time period of 1975 to 1985.

Plaintiff’s motion to compel PMK testimony and production of documents is Granted in Part. PMK Category Nos. 6 and 7 and PMK RFP Nos. 6 and 7 are limited to Morris, Hayes, Chappell, and Dumas for the time period of 1975 to 1985. LAUSD’s PMK is to testify and produce documents for the same within 30 days of this order.

1. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel LAUSD’s Further Response to Request for Production of Documents is Granted in Part. RFP No. 36 is limited to production of documents concerning LASUD employees Morris, Hayes, Chappell, and Dumas for the time period of 1975 to 1985. LAUSD is the provide a further response, along with a privilege log, within 45 days of this order.

2. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Deposition Testimony and Production of Documents from LAUSD’s PMK is Granted in Part. PMK Category Nos. 6 and 7 and PMK RFP Nos. 6 and 7 are limited to Morris, Hayes, Chappell, and Dumas for the time period of 1975 to 1985. LAUSD’s PMK is to testify and produce documents for the same within 30 days of this order.

Kerry Bensinger

Judge of the Superior Court