Judge: Mark C. Kim, Case: 22STCV04747, Date: 2023-05-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV04747    Hearing Date: May 16, 2023    Dept: S27

1.     Relevant Background Facts

Plaintiff, Jane Doe filed this action against Defendants, LBUSD and Thomas Maggio for sexual assault.  Plaintiff alleges Maggio assaulted her when she was in 8^th grade and LBUSD failed to prevent the assault despite adequate knowledge of Maggio’s prior conduct to give rise to a duty to protect.    

2.     Motions to Compel Further Responses

Plaintiff filed motions to compel further responses to FROGs and RPDs on 3/10/23.  LBUSD filed opposition papers on 4/26/23 and 5/01/23.  Plaintiff filed reply papers on 5/09/23.  The parties agree that many issues have been resolved since the filing of the motions, and therefore this ruling will focus solely on the remaining discovery items in dispute between the parties.

The first issue concerns insurance policies.  It appears LBUSD has agreed to provide all requested information.  Plaintiff mentions the issue in reply, but does not address LBUSD’s contention that it has already provided all requested information.  There appears to be nothing further needed from LBUSD at this time. 

The second issue is Maggio’s personnel file.  LBUSD concedes that the file must be produced, but indicates it cannot produce the file without a court order.  The Court therefore issues the requested order and requires LBUSD to produce the file.  The remaining issue between the parties is whether the file can be redacted or not.  LBUSD seeks to redact items listed in its attorney-client privilege and work product log, as well as Maggio’s private information, including SSN and DL number.  Plaintiff, in reply, argues that the entire file should be produced, including all allegations of sexual assault both before and after Plaintiff’s case.  LBUSD did not appear to assert anything to the contrary in its opposition.  Plaintiff does not, in reply, meaningfully address the items in the privilege log, which is attached as Exhibit C to the opposition papers.  The Court will therefore allow the requested redactions. 

Plaintiff sought production of all photographs of her that are in LBUSD’s possession.  LBUSD responded that it would produce them.  Plaintiff moved to compel a further response, arguing all objections were unsupported.  There were, however, no objections.  It is not clear why this RPD was mentioned in the moving papers, and Plaintiff does not address it in reply.  Nothing further is necessary with respect to this RPD.

Plaintiff sought production of all photographs of Maggio that are in LBUSD’s possession.  LBUSD indicates it will produce all photographs in its personnel file, but objects on the ground that the RPD is overbroad.  LBUSD notes that Maggio was a teacher for many years, and searching through everything in its possession to find photos of him is not feasible.  Plaintiff does not mention this RPD in reply.  Nothing further is required.

Plaintiff also propounded RPDs relating to police records.  LBUSD responded that they would be provided.  It is not clear why Plaintiff moved to compel a further response, and nothing in the reply clarifies the issue.  Nothing further is required.

Plaintiff sought production of all yearbooks from the years when Maggio was a teacher.  LBUSD has located the yearbooks and agreed to produce them so long as Plaintiff makes arrangements to have them copied.  Plaintiff does not, in reply, explain what steps she is taking to obtain the yearbooks.  Any next steps must be taken by Plaintiff, and there is nothing Defendant needs to do in connection with this RPD.

With the exception of the necessity of a court order re: the personnel file, all issues relating to the motion to compel appear to have been resolved.  The reply does not address any of the arguments made in the opposition.  The motion is therefore granted as to the personnel file, which LBUSD must produce with the redactions specified in the privilege log, and otherwise denied.  

Neither party seeks sanctions and none are imposed. 

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice. 

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at gdcdepts27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar.  If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative. If any party does not submit on the tentative, the party should make arrangements to appear remotely at the hearing on this matter.