Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 19STCV32148, Date: 2023-04-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV32148    Hearing Date: April 11, 2023    Dept: C

IH, et al. v. LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al.

CASE NO.:  19STCV32148

HEARING: 4/11/23 @ 9:30 AM

#1

TENTATIVE RULING

I.             Plaintiff I.H.’s motion to compel further responses from Defendant Gonzalez as to special interrogatories, set two, nos. 9-13 is DENIED.  No sanctions.

II.            Plaintiff I.H.’s motion to compel further responses from Defendant Berni-Ramos as to special interrogatories, set two, nos. 9-13 is DENIED.  No sanctions.

III.          Plaintiff I.H.’s motion to compel further responses from Defendant Garcia as to special interrogatories, set two, nos. 9-13 is DENIED.  No sanctions.

Opposing Party to give NOTICE.

Plaintiff IH moves to compel further responses to interrogatories pursuant CCP § 2030.300.   

Plaintiffs’ operative Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) alleges that Plaintiff was a ninth-grade student at the Elizabeth Learning Center (“ELC”) during the 2018-2019 school year.  (SAC, ¶ 15-16.)  AA, IC, and JC were also enrolled in and attending ELC as ninth-grade students.  (Id., ¶ 17.)  On March 20, 2019, while Plaintiff was seated on the bleachers during gym class, and the teacher Defendants Garcia and Gonzalez were in an adjacent office to the gym (SAC, ¶¶ 39-41), minors AA, IC, and JC punched Plaintiff, pulled his pants down, and AA used his fingers to digitally penetrate Plaintiff’s anus.  (SAC, ¶¶ 46-52.)  Based thereon, the SAC asserts causes of action for:

1.    Negligent Supervision/Failure to Protect

2.    Negligent Hiring, Retention, and Supervision

CCP § 2030.300 allows a party to file a motion compelling further answers to interrogatories if it finds that the response is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive, or an objection in the response is without merit or too general.  The motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration.  (CCP § 2030.300(b).) 

Nos. 9-13 ask Defendants to describe their “specific recollection” and “what actions” are taken to supervise students in the gym on March 20, 2019.”

Defendants responded that “[w]hen supervising students during P.E. class in the gymnasium, the responding party works with the other fourth period P.E. teachers to spread out around the gymnasium and observe students while they sit in the bleachers and/or participate in an activity in the middle of the gym.”

Plaintiff contends that the responses are a description of general practices rather than Defendants’ specific recollection of the events on March 20, 2019.

In opposition, Defendants explain that they did not recall the particular events on March 20, 2019 (as indicated in their responses to interrogatories nos. 8 and 14), but attempted to explain how the PE class was supervised when all four P.E. classes being held together in the gym that day.

The court finds Defendant adequately complied with the requests.  If Plaintiff has further questions, Plaintiff may utilize an alternate discovery device such as depositions.  The motions are DENIED.

Accordingly, the motions to compel further responses are DENIED. 

Sanctions: CCP §§ 2023.010(d) and 2030.300(d) the court to impose sanctions against the unsuccessful party unless the court finds the party acted with substantial justification.  

Under these circumstances, the court finds substantial justification exists, and declines to impose sanctions.