Judge: Stephen Morgan, Case: 19AVCV00188, Date: 2022-08-02 Tentative Ruling

                                                                           Department A14 Tentative Rulings 

If parties are satisfied with the tentative ruling, parties may submit by emailing the courtroom at ATPDeptA14@LACOURT.ORG. 

If a matter is also scheduled for a CMC, TSC, OSC, etc., an appearance is still required even if the parties are willing to submit on the tentative ruling.



Case Number: 19AVCV00188    Hearing Date: August 2, 2022    Dept: A14

Background

 

This is an action arising from injuries suffered by Cheyenne Jones (“Cheyenne”) and Alysa Jones (“Alyssa” or, collectively, “Plaintiffs”) caused by three assaults and/or batteries occurring on March 1, 2018, October 12, 2018, and October 29, 2018 while Cheyenne and Alysa Jones were attending school at Lancaster High School, located at 44701 32nd Street W, Lancaster, CA 93536. Defendant Antelope Valley Union High School District ("AVUHSD”) was, and is, a public entity that oversees multiple schools, including Lancaster High School.  

 

On March 6, 2019, Cheyenne Jones, Alysa Jones, and Theresa Hampton (collectively “Plaintiffs”) filed their Complaint.¿ The operative pleading is the Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”) filed on December 16, 2019 and containing¿causes of action for Statutory Negligence and Negligent Supervision.¿ 

 

On February 5, 2020, Defendants AVUHSD, Antoinette Clark, Kristen Laughlin, and Ricardo De La Pena filed a Cross-Complaint against Maria Galaviz, Isaac Galaviz, Isabel Garcia, Shaneria Arnold, Karl Williams, and Marquita Matthews, Anya Jones, and Danielle Paris (parent or guardian of Anya Jones). The Cross-Complaint is dismissed as to Marquita Matthews and Karl Williams. Isaac Galaviz, Maria Galaviz, Shaneria Arnold, and Isabel Garcia are in default. Anya Jones and Danielle Paris have not responded.  

 

On January 22, 2022, Defendant AVUHSD substituted their attorney Richard Oppenheim, Jr. with Louis R. Dumont. 

 

On July 06, 2022, Plaintiffs filed their Motion to Compel Responses to Plaintiffs’ Request for Production of Documents to Defendant Antelope Valley Union High School District, Set Two (“Motion to Compel”).

 

On July 20, 2022, AVUHSD filed its Opposition.

 

On July 25, 2022, Plaintiffs filed their Reply.

 

-----

 

Analysis

 

Standard for Compelling Responses¿to Requests for¿Production¿(“RFP”)¿–¿Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300 provides that a party may bring a motion to compel responses to a request for production of documents, where the responding party failed to serve a timely response. Unless otherwise agreed, the responding party is required to serve response within 30 days after service of the discovery demand for production documents. (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.260(a).) If the responding party fails to serve a timely response, the party “waives any objection to the demand, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product . . .” (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300(a).) The requesting party need not demonstrate “good cause to compel responses, nor that it satisfied the “meet and confer” requirement. (Sinaiko¿Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants¿(2007) 143 Cal.App.4th¿390, 404.) 

 

-----

 

Discussion

 

Application – Plaintiffs move for an order compelling AVUHSD’s response to Plaintiffs Request for Production of Documents, Set Two.

 

Here, Plaintiffs propounded AVUHSD with their Plaintiffs Request for Production of Documents, Set Two, on February 24, 2022. (Decl. Trevor Weinberg ¶ 2, Exh. 1.) The RFPs seek documents which evidence or reflect the students involved in the various incidents alleged in the TAC. (See Exh. 1.) On April 25, 2022, Plaintiffs’ counsel emailed defense counsel advising AVUHSD that it had failed to respond to Plaintiffs' Request for Production of Documents, Set Two, and inquiring about the status of Defendant's response. (Decl. Trever Weinberg ¶ 3, Exh. 2.) Plaintiff’s counsel, to date, has received no response. (Id. ¶¶ 3-4.)

 

Counsel for AVUHSD, Louis R. Dumont (“Dumont”), presents that he prepared and served a verified response to the Request for Production of Documents, Set Two, on July 22. 2022. (Decl. Dumont ¶ 14.) Dumont represents that the (1) litigation was handled by Richard Oppenheim until he left and (2) the file was transferred to Johnny Rundell (“Rundell”)  who left the office in the beginning 2022. (Opposition ¶¶ 6-7.) Afterwards, the matter was assigned to Caylin Jones who prepared, but did not send the responses. (Id. at ¶ 8.)

 

Plaintiffs’ Reply argues that, as there were no timely responses, AVUHSD waived any objection to the demand, including ones based on privilege or on the protection of work product. (See Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300.) Plaintiffs present that AVUHSD may petition the Court for a waiver of the objections to discovery, but Defendant has not done so. Plaintiffs also highlight that the RFPs, Set Two, were served after Rundell left and that Plaintiffs’ counsel had followed-up with a letter regarding the RFPs, Set Two, on April 25, 2022. (Reply 2:5-21; see also Motion Exh. 2.) Plaintiffs present that they did not receive a response.  As such, Plaintiffs request that the Court grant Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel without objections.

 

Where there has been no timely response to a demand for the production of documents, the demanding party may seek an order compelling a response. (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300(b).) Failure to timely respond waives all objections, including privilege and work product. (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300(a).) Thus, unless the party to whom the demand was directed obtains relief from waiver, he or she cannot raise objections to the documents demanded.

 

The Court has read the requested RFPs:

 

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 14:

Any DOCUMENTS which evidence or reflect any reports regarding the students who assaulted plaintiff Cheyenne Jones at any time.

 

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 15:

Any DOCUMENTS which evidence or reflect any reports regarding a physical altercation involving plaintiff Cheyenne Jones at any time.

 

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 16:

Any DOCUMENTS which evidence or reflect any reports regarding plaintiff Cheyenne Jones at any time.

 

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 17:

Any DOCUMENTS which evidence or reflect any discipline records regarding the students who assaulted plaintiff Cheyenne Jones at any time.

 

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 18:

Any DOCUMENTS which evidence or reflect any expulsion records regarding the students who assaulted plaintiff Cheyenne Jones at any time.

 

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 19:

Any DOCUMENTS which evidence or reflect any Power School log entries regarding any physical altercation involving plaintiff Cheyenne Jones at any time.

 

It appears that the Doe Defendants that have been amended to be Jo Kim, Kristen Tepper, and Lloyd Dunn, are not the students involved in the alleged incident. As such, the students who assaulted Plaintiffs are non-parties.

 

The United States Constitution “protects the right of privacy, without mentioning it by name.” (Cal. Judges Benchbook: Civil Proceedings (CJER 1994) Discovery, § 4.121, p. 76, citing Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) 381 U.S. 479.) Article I, section 1 of the California Constitution protects the right of privacy as well and provides that all people have certain "inalienable rights, " and among these is "pursuing and obtaining … privacy." However, the constitutional right of privacy is "not absolute"; it may be abridged only when there is a "compelling" and opposing state interest. (Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal.3d 844, 855-856; City of Santa Barbara v. Adamson (1980) 27 Cal.3d at p. 131; Board of Trustees v. Superior Court (1981) 119 Cal.App.3d 516, 524-525.) One such opposing state interest recognized by the California Supreme Court is the "historically important state interest of facilitating the ascertainment of truth in connection with legal proceedings." (In re Lifschutz (1970) 2 Cal.3d 415, 432; Britt, supra, 20 Cal.3d at 857; Board of Trustees, supra, 119 Cal.App.3d at 525. These cases also highlight that the test for privacy is one where “the information sought must be directly relevant to one of the issues in the action; the prospect that the inquiry might lead to admissible evidence does not suffice.” (Cal. Judges Benchbook: Civil Proceedings, supra, Discovery, § 4.128, p. 79, [citing Board of Trustees, supra, 119 Cal.App.3d at 525].) In addition, "even when discovery of private information is found directly relevant to the issues of ongoing litigation, it will not be automatically allowed; there must then be a 'careful balancing' of the 'compelling public need' for discovery against the 'fundamental right of privacy.' " (Board of Trustees, supra, 119 Cal.App.3d at 525 [internal citations omitted].)

 

AVUHSD’s failure to object cannot impair the privacy rights of non-parties. (See Boler v. Superior Court (1987) 201 Cal.App.3d 467, 472.) The Court believes that the information sought is relevant to the subject matter; however, even if the information sought is "relevant to the subject matter" within the meaning of that section, Code of Civil Procedure section 2017.0209(a) mandates that the trial court "shall" limit the scope of the discovery if it determines pursuant to a motion for protective order by a party or other affected person that "the burden, expense, or intrusiveness of that discovery clearly outweighs the likelihood that the information sought will lead to the discovery of admissible evidence." The Court believes that several RFPs in Set Two are overly broad. As such, the Court limits the request of “any time” to 2 years prior to the incident and 1 after the incident. Additionally, all personal information regarding non-party students such as names, addresses, and contact information shall be redacted.

 

The Motion to Compel is GRANTED, subject to the Court’s limitations.

 

-----

 

Sanctions

 

Plaintiffs request sanctions against AVUHSD and/or his counsel in the amount of $1,750.00 [5 hrs @ $350.00/hr] to cover the fees associated with the time Plaintiffs’ counsel has incurred from this Motion to Compel.   

 

“Except as provided in subdivision (d), the court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. If a party then fails to obey the order compelling a response, the court may make those orders that are just, including the imposition of an issue sanction, an evidence sanction, or a terminating sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010). In lieu of or in addition to this sanction, the court may impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010).” (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300(c).) Subdivision (d) is not applicable here as it focuses on the failure to provide electronically stored information that has been lost, damaged, altered, or overwritten as a result of the routine, good faith operation of an electronic information system and the corresponding obligation to preserve discoverable information. (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300(d).)

 

Here, Dumont’s explanation for AVUHSD’s failure to respond to Plaintiffs’ RFPs, Set Two, does not address the fact that Plaintiffs’ counsel had reached out to discuss the situation. Additionally, since the time the RFPs, Set Two, were propounded, Rundell was not part of the office. AVUHSD had approximately 5 months since the service of RFPs, Set Two, and two months since Plaintiffs’ counsel’s email to respond. Further, despite Dumont’s representations, the Court’s filings show that Dumont has been the new legal representative for this action since at least January 22, 2022, the date of the filing of the Substitution of Attorney form.

 

The Court imposes a sanction of $500.00 pursuant to Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300(c). 

 

-----

 

Conclusion

 

Plaintiffs Cheyenne Jones, a minor by and through her Guardian Ad Litem, Theresa Hampton; and Alyssa Jones, a minor by and through her Guardian Ad Litem, Theresa Hampton’s Motion to Compel Responses to Plaintiffs’ Request for Production of Documents to Defendant Antelope Valley Union High School District, Set Two, is GRANTED.

 

Defendant Antelope Valley Union High School District is ordered to provide responses without objections within 30 days.

 

The Court further orders the following:

 

  1. Responses are limited 2 years prior to the incident and 1 after the incident.

  2. All personal information regarding non-party students such as names, addresses, and contact information shall be redacted.

 

A sanction of $500.00 pursuant to Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300(c) is imposed Defendant Antelope Valley Union High School District and its counsel.