Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 22STCV38367, Date: 2023-11-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV38367    Hearing Date: November 9, 2023    Dept: 27

 

 

 

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

 

Nasir Amaya, a minor, by and through is guardian ad litem, Gabby Torres.

                   Plaintiff,

          vs.

 

Los Angeles Unified School District, et al.,

 

                   Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

     CASE NO.: 22STCV38367

 

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF NASIR AMAYA’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S FORM INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

 

Dept. 27

1:30 p.m.

Thursday, November 9, 2023

 

          On December 9, 2022, Plaintiff Nasir Amaya, a minor, by and through his guardian ad litem, Gabby Torres, filed this action against Defendant Los Angeles Unified School District.  The operative complaint is the Second Amended Complaint alleging a single claim for Dangerous Condition on Public Property (Gov. C. §§830, 835). 

          On September 16, 2022, Plaintiff Nasir was injured during recess at Union Elementary School of Defendant Los Angeles Unified School District.  Plaintiff Nasir’s teeth became entangled in a volleyball net that was missing the outer protective nylon lining.  As a result, Nasir’s teeth were pulled out of his mouth when he fell.  Defendant LAUSD failed to retrieve Nasir’s teeth after the accident.

          On April 10, 2023, Plaintiff served Defendant LAUSD with Form Interrogatories (Set One).  On June 5, 2023, Defendant LAUSD served responses. 

          On August 15, 2023, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to compel further responses to Form Interrogatories 12.1, 12.2 and 12.3 on August 15, 2023. 

          On September 12, 2023, parties participated in an informal discovery conference with the Court.  The Court noted that LAUSD required a court order to release the minor student witnesses’ contact information. The Court indicated that Plaintiff could proceed with a motion to compel. 

          Defendant LAUSD filed an opposition on October 13, 2023.  Plaintiff filed a reply on October 16, 2023. 

          LEGAL STANDARD — Compel Further Responses

CCP §2030.300

(a) On receipt of a response to interrogatories, the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the propounding party deems that any of the following apply:

          (1) An answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete.

          (2) An exercise of the option to produce documents under Section 2030.230 is unwarranted or the required specification of those documents is inadequate.

          (3) An objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general.

(b)(1) A motion under subdivision (a) shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.

(2) In lieu of a separate statement required under the California Rules of Court, the court may allow the moving party to submit a concise outline of the discovery request and each response in dispute.

(c) Unless notice of this motion is given within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or on or before any specific later date to which the propounding party and the responding party have agreed in writing, the propounding party waives any right to compel a further response to the interrogatories.

(d) The court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a further response to interrogatories, 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.

(e) If a party then fails to obey an order compelling further response to interrogatories, the court may make those orders that are just, including the imposition of an issue sanction, an evidence sanction, or a terminating sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010). In lieu of, or in addition to, that sanction, the court may impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010).

          If a timely motion to compel has been filed, the burden is on the responding party to justify any objection or failure to fully answer the interrogatories and RFAs. (Coy v. Sup.Ct. (Wolcher) (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220–221; Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Sup.Ct. (Stendell) (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255.)

          ANALYSIS

          Plaintiff seeks to compel further responses to Form Interrogatories 12.1, 12.2 and 12.3, which seek information related to witnesses who saw the incident, have knowledge of the incident, were interviewed about the incident and gave a statement about the incident.  Defendant LAUSD objected to  providing the information sought because the witnesses are minor students protected under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (20 USC §1232g), HIPAA, the California Education Code, LAUSD Policy Bulletin 1077.1 and other Federal and State statutes.  Defendant LAUSD concedes that a court order would allow it to provide the witness information with the exception of phone numbers. 

          Pursuant to 20 USC §1232g(b)(2)(B), Defendant LAUSD may release educational records and identifying information of the student witnesses in compliance with a judicial order, “upon condition that parents and the students are notified of such orders…in advance of the compliance therewith by the education institution or agency…” (20 USC §1232g(b)(2)(B).)  Similarly, pursuant to Education Code §49077(a), Defendant LAUSD “shall” furnish information concerning a pupil “in compliance with a court order….”  LAUSD must “make a reasonable effort to notify the pupil’s parent or legal guardian and the pupil in advance of compliance…in the case of compliance with a court order, if lawfully possible within the requirements of the order.”  (Educ. C. §49077(a).)  In addition, LAUSD “shall make a reasonable effort to enter into an agreement with the entity that obtained the court order…requiring that the pupil contact information be maintained in a confidential manner.”  (Educ. C. §49077(b).)

          Defendant’s objection based on Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (20 USC §1232g), HIPAA, the California Education Code, LAUSD Policy Bulletin 1077.1 and other Federal and State statutes is overruled.  The Court orders that Defendant provide further response to Form Interrogatories 12.1-12.3 and provide the witness information requested thereunder within 20 days.  Defendant should comply with the conditions for disclosure set forth under 20 USC §1232b(g)(2)(B) and Education Code §49077.       

          Plaintiff withdrew the request for sanctions on reply.  No sanctions are therefore at issue. 

          CONCLUSION

          Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories 12.1-12.3 is GRANTED.  Defendant LAUSD to provide further responses within 20 days subject to the requirements under 20 USC §1232b(g)(2)(B) and Education Code §49077.