Judge: Michael Shultz, Case: 23STCV31916, Date: 2024-12-03 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STCV31916 Hearing Date: December 3, 2024 Dept: 40
23STCV31916 J.S. and S.S. by and through
Guardian ad Litem, Rolando Zamora-Gonzalez v. Los Angeles Unified School
District
[TENTATIVE] ORDER
[TENTATIVE] ORDER
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF
DOCUMENTS, SET ONE, AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS
I.
Background
Plaintiffs
allege they were subjected to sexual battery, abuse, assault, and harassment by
an older student (“Older Student”) while they were students of Los Angeles
Unified School District. Plaintiffs allege claims for negligence and negligence
per se.
II.
Arguments
Plaintiffs
request an order compelling Defendant to serve further responses certain
requests made in the first set of special interrogatories (“SI”) and request
for production of documents (“RPD”). Defendant served objection-only responses
which are deficient, non-responsive, and evasive. Defendant refuses to
supplement responses despite efforts to meet and confer.
Defendant
argues that the requested information is protected from disclosure due to the
Older Student’s privacy and due to attorney-client and work product privileges.
Plaintiffs fail to address these issues. Plaintiffs failed to meet and confer.
In
reply, Plaintiffs argue that refusal to produce documents are not at issue. The
responses are not code compliant. The information that is the subject of the
special interrogatories are not protected from disclosure.
III.
LEGAL STANDARDS
A
motion to compel further responses to special interrogatories and a document
request is proper where the requesting party believes the statement of
compliance is incomplete, or a representation of inability to comply is
inadequate, incomplete, or evasive, and/or an objection in the response is
without merit or too general. (Code
Civ. Proc., sections 2030.300 subd. (a); 2031.310
subd. (a).) Both motions require the parties to meet and confer prior to filing
the motion.
IV.
DISCUSSION
The
special interrogatories at issue are 28, 29, and 30. Plaintiffs request the
identity of the Older Student as a fifth grader, complaints made against him as
a fifth grader as alleged, and the identity of documents related to each
complaint identified in response to No. 29.
Document
requests 10, 11, and 12, requests production of documents identified in
response to SI 30, “all documents related to communications relating to
plaintiffs’ allegations as set forth in the complaint, and the production of
investigations conducted as a result of Plaintiffs’ allegations.
Defendant’s
response was substantively the same: that the requests were compound, called for
private student information protected under the Federal Educational Rights and
Privacy Act (“FERPA”) and California Educate Code § 49060, et seq. as well as
the Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Act (“CANRA”).
In
relevant part, “directory information” under FERPA relates to a student’s name,
address, and telephone number. (20
U.S.C.A. § 1232g subd. (a)(5)(A).) Funds
shall not be made available to an educational institution that has a policy "of
permitting the release of education records (or personally identifiable
information contained therein other than directory information, as
defined in paragraph (5) of subsection (a)) of students without the written
consent of their parents to any individual, agency, or organization, … .” (20
U.S.C.A. § 1232g subd. (b)(1) [emphasis added].) Information provided in
compliance with a judicial order, however, is excepted. (20
U.S.C.A. § 1232g subd. (b)(2)(B).)
California
adopted a similar statute "regarding parental access to, and the
confidentiality of, pupil records in order to ensure the continuance of federal
education funds to public educational institutions within the state, and to
revise generally and update the law relating to those records." (Ed.
Code, § 49060.) Under California law, directory information of any pupil or
former pupil shall not be released absent notice that the school district plans
to release the information according to local policy. (Ed.
Code, § 49073 subd. (b).) “Directory information” includes a pupil’s name,
address, and telephone number. (Ed.
Code, § 49061 subd. (c).) Information
concerning a pupil “shall be furnished in compliance with a court order or
lawfully issued subpoena.” (Ed.
Code, § 49077.)
The
foregoing statutes constrain the District’s ability to release confidential student
records without parental consent, court order, or subpoena. Where privacy rights are implicated, the
requesting party must make a threshold showing that the records sought are
directly relevant to that party’s claims and are essential to the fair
resolution of the lawsuit. (Davis
v. Superior Court (1992) 7
Cal.App.4th 1008, 1014). An order compelling disclosure must be
narrowly tailored so as not to infringe on constitutional rights. Speculation
that an answer may recover something helpful does not meet that threshold
burden. (Fults
v. Superior Court (1979) 88
Cal.App.3d 899, 901.)
The party asserting privacy must establish
the extent and seriousness of the prospective invasion. (Williams
v. Superior Court (2017) 3
Cal.5th 531, 557). Against
that showing, the court must weigh the countervailing interests the opposing
party identifies. (Id.). The court considers the purpose of the
information sought, the effect that disclosure will have on the affected
persons and parties, the nature of the objections urged by the party resisting
disclosure, and whether there are less intrusive means for obtaining the
requested information. (SCC
Acquisitions, Inc. v. Superior Court (2015)
243 Cal.App.4th 741, 755).
Therefore, the privacy interest is not absolute; rather, the court weighs
factors to determine whether the financial information should be compelled.
The Older Student is the alleged
perpetrator, ostensibly with knowledge of the facts alleged by Plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs are entitled to the identity and location of persons having
knowledge of any discoverable matter. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2017.010.) Privacy protects a person from a “serious
invasion” of that right. (Puerto
v. Superior Court (2008) 158
Cal.App.4th 1242, 1250.) The
Older Student’s identity is crucial to Plaintiffs’ claims. The District has not
shown that a student’s anonymity is protected under these circumstances. On
balance, Plaintiffs are entitled to discover the Older Student’s identity and
related information.
Complaints about Older Student and the
identity of such documents outweigh Older Student’s privacy. Non-disclosure
will prevent Plaintiffs from proving their allegations that the District
breached its mandatory duty to protect them from known or foreseeable dangers
and that the District “turned a blind eye to numerous red flags.” (Complaint, ¶¶
2, 38, 44.) Accordingly, SI 28, 29, and 30, and RPD No. 10 all seek
discoverable information.
RPD No. 11 is overbroad (“All documents
related to communications relating to plaintiffs’ allegations, as set forth in
the complaint.”) A document demand must specifically describe each individual
item or reasonably particularize each category of document. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.030 subd. (c)(1). However, Plaintiffs clarified
in their meet and confer letter that Plaintiffs did not seek records protected
by attorney-client or work-product privilege which appears to apply to a “Post-It”
note sent to the District’s general counsel.
(Plaintiff’s Ex. D, p. 4, Ex. F.)
The “Post-it” note is attorney client communication to which an absolute
privilege applies. (DP
Pham, LLC v. Cheadle (2016) 246
Cal.App.4th 653, 664 [The
privilege is absolute and prevents disclosure of the communication regardless
of its relevance, necessity or other circumstances peculiar to the case.”].)
After meeting and conferring, Defendant
provided an amended privilege log that characterized three documents as
“General Counsel Confidential Incident Report.” (Mot. Ex. D, F.) Neither the Plaintiffs’ motion, nor their
reply indicates whether Plaintiffs challenged this assertion, or whether
Plaintiffs discussed the withholding of “General Counsel” documents. (Opp.,
Yeoman Decl. ¶ 14.) The parties must
meet and confer over these issues prior to bringing a motion.
However, Plaintiffs’ concern with respect
to Defendant’s response is well taken. Defendant maintains that “[a]fter a
reasonably diligent search and based on information presently known to the
District, no responsive unprivileged records are known to exist, either
presently or at any prior point in time. Investigation is ongoing.” (Mot. Ex.
A, 10:23-25.) This objection is evasive, as it does not affirm that a
“reasonable inquiry has been made in an effort to comply with the demand.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.230.) This is not a “quibble” as Defendant
asserts, but rather the response as framed avoids the requirement that
Defendant search and inquire, and not merely disclose
information “presently known to the District.”
V. CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, Plaintiffs’ motion
to compel further responses to special interrogatories is GRANTED. Defendant
shall provide further, verified, code-compliant, and complete responses within
10 days to SI 28, 29, and 30. Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further responses to
request for production of documents 10, 11, and 12 is GRANTED. Defendant is
ordered to provide further, verified, code-compliant responses to the requests
at issue.
Plaintiffs’ request for imposition of
sanctions against Defendant are DENIED given that Defendant is precluded from
disclosing information about a student or former student absent consent or
without a court order.