Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 21STCV42221, Date: 2025-02-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV42221    Hearing Date: February 24, 2025    Dept: 28

Having considered the moving, opposing, and reply papers, the Court rules as follows. 

BACKGROUND 

          On November 16, 2021, Plaintiff Azariyah M. (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Los Angeles Oasis Christian Church (“Oasis”), Aaron While (“White”), and Does 1-100 for negligence, sexual harassment (Civ. Code, § 51.9), sexual battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. 

          On December 6, 2021, Oasis filed an answer.  On March 29, 2022, White filed an answer. 

          On January 23, 2025, Oasis filed a motion to compel Plaintiff’s further responses to requests for admissions, set one, numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, & 6.  On February 7, 2025, Plaintiff filed an opposition.  On February 14, 2025, Oasis filed a reply. 

Trial is currently scheduled for November 18, 2025. 

PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS 

A.      Informal Discovery Conference 

The Eighth Amended Standing Order for Procedures in the Personal Injury Hub Courts Effective October 10, 2022 (Filed September 20, 2022), ¶ 9E, provides: “PI Hub Courts will not hear Motions to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Discovery until the parties have engaged in an Informal Discovery Conference (IDC).  PI Hub Courts may deny or continue a Motion to Compel Further Responses to Discovery if parties fail to schedule and complete an IDC before the scheduled hearing on a Motion to Compel Further Responses to Discovery.” 

The parties participated in an IDC on December 23, 2024. 

B.       Timeliness of Motion 

A notice of motion to compel further responses must be given within 45 days of the service of the responses, or any supplemental responses, or on or before any specific later date to which the parties have agreed in writing. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.290, subd. (c).) Failure to file a motion within this time period constitutes a waiver of any right to compel further responses to requests for admission. 

Plaintiff does not dispute the timeliness of the motion. 

C.   Meet and Confer 

A motion to compel further responses to requests for admission must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Code of Civil Procedure section 2016.040.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.290, subd. (b)(1).)  “A meet and confer declaration must state facts showing a reasonable and good-faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2016.040.) 

Oasis has provided a meet and confer declaration. 

D.      Separate Statement 

With exceptions that do not apply here, California Rules of Court, rule 3.1345, requires that any motion involving the content of discovery contain a separate statement with the text of each request, the response, and a statement of factual and legal reasons for why an order compelling further responses is warranted.  

Oasis has filed a separate statement. 

APPLICABLE LAW 

A.             Requests for admission 

 Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.290 provides: 

“(a) On receipt of a response to requests for admissions, the party requesting admissions may move for an order compelling a further response if that party deems that either or both of the following apply: 

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

“(2) An objection to a particular request 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 any specific later date to which the requesting party and the responding party have agreed in writing, the requesting party waives any right to compel further response to the requests for admission. 

“(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 further response, 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 requests for admission, the court may order that the matters involved in the requests be deemed admitted. In lieu of, or in addition to, this order, the court may impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010).” 

(Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.290.) 

B.             Code of Civil Procedure section 2017.220 

Code of Civil Procedure section 2017.220 provides: 

“(a) In any civil action alleging conduct that constitutes sexual harassment, sexual assault, or sexual battery, any party seeking discovery concerning the plaintiff’s sexual conduct with individuals other than the alleged perpetrator shall establish specific facts showing that there is good cause for that discovery, and that the matter sought to be discovered is relevant to the subject matter of the action and reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This showing shall be made by a noticed motion, accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040, and shall not be made or considered by the court at an ex parte hearing. 

“(b) 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 for discovery under subdivision (a), 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.” 

(Code Civ. Proc., § 2017.220.) 

C.             Evidence Code section 1106 

Evidence Code section 1106 provides: 

“(a) In any civil action alleging conduct which constitutes sexual harassment, sexual assault, or sexual battery, opinion evidence, reputation evidence, and evidence of specific instances of the plaintiff’s sexual conduct, or any of that evidence, is not admissible by the defendant in order to: 

“(1) Prove consent by the plaintiff. 

“(2) Prove absence of injury suffered by the plaintiff, unless the injury alleged by the plaintiff is in the nature of loss of consortium. 

“(3) Attack the credibility of the plaintiff’s testimony on consent or the absence of injury suffered by the plaintiff. 

“(b) Subdivision (a) does not apply to evidence of the plaintiff’s sexual conduct with the alleged perpetrator. 

“(c) Notwithstanding subdivision (b), in any civil action brought pursuant to Section 1708.5 of the Civil Code involving a minor and an adult as described in Section 1708.5.5 of the Civil Code, evidence of the plaintiff minor’s sexual conduct with the defendant adult shall not be admissible to prove consent by the plaintiff or the absence of injury to the plaintiff. 

“(d) If the plaintiff introduces evidence, including testimony of a witness, or the plaintiff as a witness gives testimony, and the evidence or testimony relates to the plaintiff’s sexual conduct, the defendant may cross-examine the witness who gives the testimony and offer relevant evidence limited specifically to the rebuttal of the evidence introduced by the plaintiff or given by the plaintiff. 

“(e) This section shall not be construed to make inadmissible any evidence offered to attack the credibility of the plaintiff’s testimony as to something other than consent or absence of injury as provided in Section 783.” 

(Evid. Code, § 1106.)      

DISCUSSION 

A.   The complaint 

The complaint includes the following allegations: 

Plaintiff was born in 2002 and was a minor in 2019.  Plaintiff was a congregant at Oasis. 

White was an adult male approximately 40 years old in 2019.  White was a pastor, youth pastor, agent and employee of Oasis. 

Plaintiff began coming to Oasis when she was 14 years old. As she grew up within the church, she became closer White, who was a lead youth pastor.  Over the course of several years, White groomed and manipulated Plaintiff.  The grooming ultimately led to inappropriate touching and molestation that started September of 2019 and ended March of 2020.  While Plaintiff was still a minor, White forced Plaintiff to perform a sex act on him. 

B.   Requests for admission 

On August 16, 2024, Oasis served requests for admission, set one, on Plaintiff.  According to Oasis, the requests for admission are based on “information discovered in White’s testimony that a few months before the allegations of sexual abuse arose in this case, Plaintiff was the victim of rape by Ex-Boyfriend.  This alleged rape occurred in August 2019, and may be and likely is a significant contributor to the emotional injuries Plaintiff alleges here.”  (Motion p. 6.)  Oasis argues the discovery is relevant to the “apportionment of damages” (Motion p. 2) and it “would be unfairly prejudiced if it were not permitted to inquire into other potential sources of Plaintiff’s injuries . . . .”  (Motion p. 4.) 

In opposition, Plaintiff argues that Oasis is seeking evidence made inadmissible by Evidence Code section 1106, subdivision (a), which prevents the admission of evidence to “[p]rove absence of injury suffered by the plaintiff, unless the injury alleged by the plaintiff is in the nature of loss of consortium.”  (Evid. Code, § 1106, subd. (a)(2).)  Oasis responds that discovery seeking evidence of “alternative explanations” of Plaintiff’s injuries does not fall within the prohibition of Evidence Code section 1106. 

The Supreme Court recently addressed some of these issues in the context of admissibility of evidence at trial.  (See Doe v. Superior Court (2023) 15 Cal.5th 40 (Doe).) The Court concluded that evidence of a second, subsequent sexual assault may be admissible to challenge the credibility of a plaintiff's contentions regarding the cause of emotional distress and apportionment of damages if a trial court follows Evidence Code section 783 procedures and conducts an “especially careful review ... under [Evidence Code] section 352.” (Doe, supra, 15 Cal.5th at p. 47.)  Accordingly, Doe does not support Plaintiff’s position that, at the discovery stage, Evidence Code section 1106, subdivision (a), relieves her from the obligation to respond to Oasis’s requests for admission about a possible prior sexual assault. 

Plaintiff also argues that Oasis has not established “specific facts showing that there is good cause for discovery [concerning the plaintiff’s sexual conduct with individuals other than the alleged perpetrator], and that the matter sought to be discovered is relevant to the subject matter of the action and reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.”  (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2017.220, subd. (a).)  The Court has reviewed Oasis’s motion and supporting evidence and finds that Oasis has met its burden under Code of Civil Procedure section 2017.220. 

The Court grants the motion. 

CONCLUSION 

The Court GRANTS Defendant Los Angeles Oasis Christian Church’s motion to compel Plaintiff Azariyah M.’s further responses to requests for admission, set one, numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6.  The Court orders Plaintiff Azariyah M. to provide further code-compliant responses to requests for admission, set one, numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 by March 24, 2025. 

Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling. 

Moving party is ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.