Judge: Mark A. Young, Case: 21STCV26350, Date: 2023-09-19 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV26350 Hearing Date: September 19, 2023 Dept: M
CASE NO.: 21STCV26350
MOTION: Motion
to Compel Compliance Against Non-Party the California Commission on Teacher
Credentialing
HEARING DATE: 9/19/2023
Legal
Standard
Personal service of a
deposition subpoena obligates the production of whatever documents or things
are specified in the subpoena and to appear in any proceedings to enforce
discovery. (CCP § 2020.220(c). If a nonparty disobeys a deposition subpoena,
the subpoenaing party may seek a court order pursuant to CCP section 1987.1
compelling the nonparty to comply with the subpoena within 60 days after
completion of the deposition record. (CCP § 2025.480(b); see also UnzippedApparel, LLC v. Bader
(2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 123, 127.)
The motion must be accompanied by a
meet and confer declaration. (CCP § 2025.480(b).) There is no “good cause”
requirement when seeking to compel documents from a nonparty. (CCP §
2020.410(c).)
Analysis
Plaintiff
moves to compel a response to the subpoena. Specifically, the subpoena sought
the following:
1. Any and all DOCUMENTS, including
statements of decision, findings, summaries, opinions, rulings, and/or minutes
regarding any California Commission on Teacher Credentialing investigation
and/or hearing regarding JOSEPH BLAKENEY BROWN, SR. who is licensed by the
California Commission on Teacher Credentialing.
2. Any and all DOCUMENTS regarding
any disciplinary action imposed on JOSEPH BLAKENEY BROWN, SR., WHO is licensed
by the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing.
3. Any and all DOCUMENTS regarding
complaints about inappropriate behavior by JOSEPH BLAKENEY BROWN, SR.
4. Any and all DOCUMENTS regarding
any response by JOSEPH BLAKENEY BROWN, SR. to any complaints made against him.
5. Any and all DOCUMENTS regarding
any alleged improper behavior by licensee JOSEPH BLAKENEY BROWN, SR.
6. Any and all DOCUMENTS submitted
to the California Commission on Teacher
Credentialing by JOSEPH BLAKENEY BROWN, SR. including but
not limited to applications, statements, fingerprints, and forms.
7. Any and all DOCUMENTS referring
and/or regarding correspondence and/or communications between the California
Commission on Teacher Credentialing and JOSEPH BLAKENEY BROWN, SR.
8. Any and all DOCUMENTS referring
and/or regarding correspondence and/or communications between the California
Commission on Teacher Credentialing and LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
regarding JOSEPH BLAKENEY BROWN, SR.
9. The California Commission on
Teacher Credentialing's complete file of JOSEPH BLAKENEY BROWN, SR.
10. Any and all disciplinary
history for the General Elementary Teaching Credential Issued to Joseph
Blakeney Brown on 5/13/1963 (Document Number 8LD49147), including any and all charges
and accusations for misconduct, any and all documents indicating the grounds
for revocation, all documents relating to any investigation into misconduct by
Joseph Blakeney Brown, any and all documents relating to any administrative
hearing held relating to the revocation of said credential;
11. Any and all disciplinary
history for the “Special Secondary Credential for Teaching the Mentally
Retarded” Issued to Joseph Blakeney Brown on 5/12/1968 (Document Number
8LD49147), including any and all charges and accusations for misconduct, any
and all documents indicating the grounds for revocation, all documents relating
to any investigation into misconduct by Joseph Blakeney Brown, any and all
documents relating to any administrative hearing held relating to the
revocation of said credential;
12. The document number relating to
all credentials issued to Joseph Blakeney Brown during the period of time from
1/1/1963 to 12/31/1968, including but not limited to, the title, term of
validity, subjects, authorizations, revocations, effective dates, renewal
requirements, and restrictions and the last known business address of any
applicant or credential holder.
(Lewis Decl., Ex. 2.)
On June 19, 2023, the Commission
produced certain redacted documents and noted that certain documents were not
produced. (Lewis Decl., Ex. 3.) The Commission’s counsel represented that the
Commission would not produce the requested documents absent a court order.
(Id., ¶ 5.)
Generally, the Commission fails to
provide any persuasive reasoning or authority that overcomes the relevancy of
the sought records. The records are relevant to determine whether the Los
Angeles Unified School District was on notice of Brown’s impropriety and how
the District responded to any complaints. The Commission cites authority that
does not prevent this Court from ordering production. In fact, the cited authority
suggests that this Court does have authority to order production. (See
Education Code §§ 44230, 44245.)
The Court agrees that certain third-party
privacy interests may require redactions. The Commission may redact the
personal identifying information of third parties, including the dates of birth
and social security numbers of other credential holders who are unrelated to
the underlying conduct at issue in this case. On the other hand, any responses
by Brown or personal identifying information of Brown should be disclosed and
not redacted. Further, The Commission must produce any documents it has custody
of, including the identified withheld documents. (See Cho Decl., ¶ 3.)
The Commission argues that criminal
history records in their possession are not the Commission’s “business
records.” A deposition subpoena for business records is to be “directed to the
custodian of those records or another person qualified to certify the records.”
(CCP, § 2020.410(c).) “At first blush, it would seem that a person or entity
that maintains records would also be the custodian of those records.
Nevertheless, the custodian of records or other qualified witness contemplated
by Evidence Code section 1561 must also be able to attest to various attributes
of the records relevant to their authenticity and trustworthiness. As such,
execution of a section 1561 affidavit is more than simply a clerical task.” (Cooley
v. Superior Court (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 1039, 1044.) The Commission
declares that it did not prepare the criminal records at issue. Thus, the
Commission cannot certify the contents of the criminal records. Therefore, they
are not the custodian of records per section 2020.410.
Plaintiff argues that there is no
other means for production of the criminal records. Plaintiff notes that it is
difficult to discover what documents remain from a criminal investigation 40
years ago. Plaintiff explains that they have been unable to obtain relevant
records from other entities, including the Los Angeles Police Department, the
Santa Monica Police Department, and the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department.
These entities issued certificates of no records. Plaintiff claims that the
Commission is now the sole entity that has the records related to the criminal
proceedings against Brown. The Commission suggests that Plaintiff issue a
subpoena to the Bureau of Identification and Investigation, the agency which
created the criminal history records. Plaintiff believes that there is no
assurance that the BII is in possession of any records whatsoever. However,
Plaintiff has the means of finding out. The Court will require Plaintiff
subpoena the BII, the apparent custodian of these records. Following such a
subpoena, if there are truly no other means of obtaining these records, then
the Court will revisit whether production from the Commission would be
appropriate. Until then, the Commission does not have to produce the criminal
records.
Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED
as modified.