Judge: Serena R. Murillo, Case: 21STCV22619, Date: 2023-05-23 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV22619 Hearing Date: May 23, 2023 Dept: 31
TENTATIVE
The Court
GRANTS the Defendant District’s Unopposed Motion to Quash Plaintiff’s Subpoena for Production of
Business Records to Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges.
The
District’s Motion for a Protective Order is MOOT.
Legal Standard
If a subpoena
requires the attendance of a witness or the production of books, documents,
electronically stored information, or other things before a court, or at the
trial of an issue therein, or at the taking of a deposition, the court, upon
motion reasonably made by any person described in subdivision (b), or upon the
court's own motion after giving counsel notice and an opportunity to be heard,
may make an order quashing the subpoena entirely, modifying it, or directing
compliance with it upon those terms or conditions as the court shall declare,
including protective orders. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.1, subd. (a).)¿
Discussion
Summary of Dispute and Discovery At Issue
Plaintiff filed this lawsuit on the basis that his removal from his
department’s seniority list due to poor performance evaluations, was based in
part due to discrimination due to his age and in retaliation for opposing the
Defenants’ practices. (TAC ¶ 18.)
On January 10, 2013, the District filed a motion for summary judgment or
summary adjudication in the alternative. In support of the district’s summary
judgment motion, the committee members who issued Plaintiff’s unsatisfactory
performance rating submitted declarations explaining that Plaintiff’s deficient
syllabus was one of many reasons for Plaintiff’s unsatisfactory performance
rating. The District alleges the deficiencies in Plaintiff’s syllabus included
an incorrect course title, student learning outcomes that were not approved by
LAVC, no course content for weeks 14 and 15 of the course, and the failure to
upload the syllabus on the LAVC system in a timely manner. (See Usoro Decl., ¶¶ 2-3, Exh. 2 [Declaration of
Matthew Jordan (“Jordan Decl.”), ¶ 37], Exh. 3 [Declaration of Chauncey Maddren
(“Maddren” Decl.”), ¶ 15], Exh. 4 [Declaration of Michelle Visco Lewis (“Visco
Lewis Decl.”) ¶ 14], Exh. 5 [Declaration of Rebecca Stein (“Stein Decl.”), ¶
16], and Exh. 7.)
The
declarations filed in support of the District’s motion for summary judgment
state that a flawed syllabus could place LAVC’s accreditation with the
Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges (“ACCJC”), the
organization that determines the accredited status of community colleges in the
United States, at risk. (Joran Decl. ¶ 37; Stein Decl. ¶ 16.) The District
asserts ACCJC Accreditation Standard II.A.3 and Board Rule, Rule 6703.10
require: “The institution identifies and regularly assesses learning outcomes
for the courses . . . In every class section students receive a course syllabus
that includes learning outcomes from the institution’s official approved course
outline” and that Plaintiff’s syllabus failed to comply with this standard.
(Joran Decl. ¶ 37; Stein Decl. ¶ 16.)
On March 08,
2023, Plaintiff served the District with a notice to consumer indicating that
Plaintiff is seeking the following records from ACCJC pursuant to subpoena:
1. ALL DOCUMENTS
RELATING TO audits, investigations, and/or accreditation inquiries conducted by
YOU of DEFENDANT’s Los Angeles Valley College campus, located at 5800 Fulton
Ave., Valley Glen, California 91401, between January 1, 2015 to present.
2. ALL DOCUMENTS
RELATING TO audits, investigations, and/or accreditations conducted by YOU of
DEFENDANT’s Los Angeles Valley College campus, located at 5800 Fulton Ave.,
Valley Glen, California 91401, in the last ten (10) years that reflect any
findings of Title V non-compliance, non-compliance with standards for syllabi,
non-compliance with grading standards, noncompliance with student learning
outcome statements, and/or noncompliance with student learning outcome
assessments.
3. All
COMMUNICATIONS between YOU and DEFENDANT that relate to any audits,
investigations, and/or accreditation inquiries of DEFENDANT’S Los Angeles
Valley College campus, located at 5800 Fulton Ave., Valley Glen, California
91401, between January 1, 2015 to present.
(Usoro Decl. ¶ 4, Ex. 8.)
On March
23, 3023, the ACCJC served the parties with its objection to Plaintiff’s
subpoena. (Usoro Decl. ¶ 9, Ex. 12.)
The District’s Motion to Quash, or in the
alternative, Request for a Protective Order
The District
moves for an order quashing Plaintiff’s business records subpoena to the ACCJC
on the bases that the subpoena is overbroad, not likely to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence, and is likely to violate the privacy,
confidentiality, and privileges of the District, the District’s employees and
students, and ACCJC. In the alternative, the district states that a protective
order is needed to protect the privacy and confidentiality interests of the
District, the District’s employees and students, and ACCJC. (See Code Civ.
Proc., § 2025.420.)
The District argues that ACCJC’s accreditation records are unrelated to
Plaintiff’s claims because LAVC’s accreditation
status, and whether its status is based on any professor’s syllabi or elements
of the syllabi, has no bearing in this case since the District is required to
ensure a positive accreditation rating regardless of whether its prior ratings
were positive or negative. Plaintiff has failed to oppose the District’s motion
or explain why ACCJC’s accreditation records are relevant to Plaintiff’s
claims. To prove or disprove that the ACCJC requires syllabi to state accurate
student learning outcomes, Plaintiff would only need access to ACCJC’s
accreditation standards, which the District has provided, and not ACCJC’s
entire communications, audits, investigations, or accreditations regarding
Defendant LAVC.
The District
also points out that Defendant’s subpoena request is in conflict the ACCJC’s
Statement on the Process of Preserving Confidentiality provisions and Policy on
Public Disclosure and Confidentiality in the Accreditation Process. (Usoro
Decl. ¶ 7, Ex. 10, 11.) The Policy
on Public Disclosure and Confidentiality in the Accreditation Process states,
in relevant part:
“The
institutional file retained in the Commission office is part of the private
relationship with the institution and is therefore not available to the public
… The Commission does not release contact information of its peer reviewers to
the public … In order to assure the accuracy and appropriateness of
institutional information which is made public, the Commission expects peer
review team members to keep confidential all institutional information read or
heard before, during, and after the visit. Except in the context of Commission
work, team members are expected to refrain from discussing information obtained
in the course of service. Personal notes and working documents are included in
the scope of confidential information.”
(Id.
Ex. 10.)
Here,
Plaintiff has failed to show that the information requested from ACCJC is
relevant to Plaintiff’s claims. (See Slagle v.
Superior Court (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 1309, 1314-1315; City of Los
Angeles v. Superior Court (1973) 33 Cal.App.3d 778, 783.) Moreover,
Plaintiff has failed to show that the information requested is likely to lead
to admissible evidence. Lastly, Plaintiff has failed to show that
disclosure of ACCJC’s records regarding LAVC do not infringe on Defendants’
privacy rights or that the need for discovery is such that Defendants’ privacy
rights should be overridden due to the needs of the case.
Therefore,
the Court finds that the District has shown good cause as to why the Motion to
Quash should be granted. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the District’s Motion to
Quash. The District’s Motion for a Protective Order is MOOT.
Conclusion
The Court GRANTS
the District’s Motion to Quash Plaintiff’s Subpoena for Production of Business
Records to Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges.
The
District’s Motion for a Protective Order is MOOT.
Moving party is ordered to give notice.