Judge Salvatore Sirna, Case Number: 21STCV43583, Date: 2024-07-16 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Salvatore Sirna, Case: 21STCV43583, Date: 2024-07-16 Tentative Ruling

The Court may change tentative rulings at any time. Therefore, counsel are advised to check this website periodically to determine whether any changes or updates have been made to the tentative ruling. Counsel may submit on a tentative ruling by calling the clerk in Department G at (909) 802-1104 prior to 8:30 a.m. the morning of the hearing.

Case Number: 21STCV43583 Hearing Date: July 16, 2024 Dept: G

Respondent: Plaintiff John SJ Doe and Non-Party Meta Platforms, Inc.

Non-Party Meta Platforms, Inc.’s Unopposed Motion to Seal

Respondent: NO OPPOSITION

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant Claremont Unified School District’s Motion to Direct Compliance with Business Records Subpoena on Meta Platforms, Inc. Seeking Electronically Stored Information Related to Plaintiff’s Social Media Posts is GRANTED. Non-Party Meta Platforms, Inc. is ordered to serve the requested records on Defendant Claremont Unified School District within twenty (20) days of the issuance of this order.

Non-Party Meta Platforms, Inc.’s Unopposed Motion to Seal is GRANTED.

BACKGROUND

This action arises from the sexual abuse of a high school student by school staff. Defendant Brandy Wilborn was a teacher’s aide employed by Defendant Claremont Unified School District (CUSD) at Claremont High School. Plaintiff John SJ Doe was a student at Claremont High School. From December 2014 to May 2015, Wilborn sexually assaulted, abused, molested, and harassed Doe. Wilborn was then arrested in 2015 and pled no contest to unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor.

On November 29, 2021, Doe filed a complaint for damages against CUSD, Wilborn, and Does 1 through 50, alleging the following causes of action: (1) intentional infliction of emotional distress against all defendants; (2) negligence against CUSD and Does 1-50; (3) negligent supervision against CUSD and Does 1-50; (4) negligent retention/hiring against CUSD and Does 1-50; (5) negligent failure to train, warn, or educate against CUSD and Does 1-50; (6) breach of fiduciary duty against all defendants; (7) constructive fraud pursuant to Civil Code, section 1573 against all defendants; (8) sexual harassment pursuant to Civil Code, section 51.9 against all defendants; (9) sexual harassment and abuse in the educational setting pursuant to Education Code, section 220 against CUSD and Does 1-50; (10) sexual battery against Wilborn; (11) gender violence pursuant to Civil Code, section 52.4 against Wilborn; and (12) violation of Penal Code, section 647.6, subdivision (a)(1) against Wilborn. On June 17, 2022, the Court sustained CUSD’s demurrer to the Complaint.

On September 6, 2022, Doe filed a First Amended Complaint (FAC) against the same defendants alleging the same causes of action. On February 9, 2023, the Court sustained CUSD’s demurrer to the FAC.

On March 1, 2023, Doe filed a Second Amended Complaint (SAC) against the same defendants alleging the same causes of action. On July 24, 2023, the Court sustained and overruled CUSD’s demurrer to the SAC in part without leave to amend.

On February 9, 2024, CUSD filed the present motion. After obtaining ex parte relief to file one of the motion’s exhibits under seal, CUSD refiled the motion on April 25, 2024.

On June 11, 2024, CUSD filed a motion for summary judgment.

On June 20, 2024, Non-Party Meta Platforms, Inc. (Meta) filed the present motion to seal.

A hearing on the present motions is set for July 16, 2024, along with a post-mediation status conference/trial setting conference. CUSD’s motion for summary judgment is set for August 27, 2024.

ANALYSIS

CUSD moves to compel non-party Meta’s compliance with a deposition subpoena for data from Doe’s Instagram account. For the following reasons, the court GRANTS Doe’s motion.

Legal Standard

A party seeking discovery from a person who is not a party to the action may obtain discovery by oral deposition, written deposition, or deposition subpoena for production of business records. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2020.010.) A deposition subpoena may command: (1) only the attendance and testimony of the deponent, (2) only the production of business records for copying, or (3) the attendance and testimony of the deponent, as well as the production of business records, other documents, electronically stored information, and tangible things. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2020.020.) Service of a deposition subpoena shall be done with sufficient time in advance of the deposition to provide the deponent a reasonable opportunity to locate and produce any designated documents and, where personal attendance is commanded, a reasonable time to travel to the place of deposition. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2020.220, subd. (a).) Personal service of any deposition subpoena is effective to require a deponent who is a resident of California to: personally appear and testify, if the subpoena so specifies; to produce any specified documents; and to appear at a court session if the subpoena so specifies. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2020.220, subd. (c).)

If a deponent fails to appear or produce requested documents for a deposition, the deposing party may file a noticed motion to compel deponent’s compliance. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.1, subd. (a).) A deponent who disobeys a deposition subpoena may also be punished for contempt without the necessity of a prior court order court directing compliance. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2020.240.) A noncompliant deponent may also be ordered to pay $500 to the deposing party in addition to any damages the deposing party incurred as a result of the deponent’s failure to attend the deposition. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2020.240, citing Code Civ. Proc., § 1992.)

Discussion

On December 7, 2023, CUSD served a deposition subpoena on Meta requesting the following data from Doe’s Instagram account over a period from April 21, 2013 to 2020: (1) all communications with or relating to Wilborn, (2) all communications referencing Wilborn, (3) all photos posted by Doe, (4) all comments made by Doe, (5) all references by Doe to psychological or emotional distress and treatment, and (6) all posts by Doe referring to potential stressors related to emotional distress. (Kostrenich Decl., ¶ 3, Ex. A.) On December 12, 2023, Meta objected to the subpoena on the grounds that the Stored Communications Act requires subpoenas to be directed at the account user as opposed to the account service provider. (Kostrenich Decl., ¶ 4, Ex. B.) CUSD then proceeded with the present motion.

In response, Doe filed a notice of non-opposition stating Doe has no opposition to the Court compelling Meta to comply with CUSD’s deposition subpoena. Meta has also filed a notice of non-opposition, stating Meta does not oppose the subpoena if the Court finds Doe lawfully consented to disclosure. But Meta notes CUSD and Doe dispute the mode of production. While CUSD demands the records be produced concurrently to both parties’ counsel, Doe demands the records be first produced to Doe’s counsel who will then forward any responsive records to CUSD. (Glickman Decl., ¶ 4-5.) But Doe has not made this request in Doe’s notice of non-opposition. Because the Court finds Doe has lawfully consented to the disclosure of Doe’s account data, CUSD is entitled to Meta’s compliance with the deposition subpoena. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS CUSD’s motion.

In a separate unopposed motion, Meta requests the Court seal the supporting exhibits for its response to CUSD’s motion. To seal records, the Court must expressly find “(1) [t]here exists an overriding interest that overcomes the right of public access to the record; (2) [t]he overriding interest supports sealing the record; (3) [a] substantial probability exists that the overriding interest will be prejudiced if the record is not sealed; (4) [t]he proposed sealing is narrowly tailored; and (5) [n]o less restrictive means exist to achieve the overriding interest.” (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 2.550, subd. (d).)

Here, because the supporting exhibits contain identifying and personal information for a minor victim of sexual assault, the court finds Doe’s privacy interests outweigh the right of public access and support sealing the record. The court also finds there is a substantial probability that Doe’s privacy interests would be prejudiced if Doe’s personal information is published. Last, the court finds the request is reasonably tailored to the exhibits that contain Doe’s personal information and no less restrictive means exists to protect Doe’s privacy interests.

Accordingly, the court GRANTS Meta’s motion to seal.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, CUSD’s motion to compel is GRANTED and Meta is ordered to provide all records requested to CUSD within twenty (20) days of the issuance of this order.

Furthermore, Meta’s motion to seal is GRANTED.