Judge Thomas D. Long, Case Number: 20STCV30564, Date: 2024-12-17 Tentative Ruling

On August 12, 2020, Plaintiff Jane Doe L.P. filed this action against Downey Unified School District. A jury trial is currently scheduled for January 21, 2025.

On November 7, 2024, Defendant filed a motion for evidentiary and/or issue sanctions.

“The court may impose an issue sanction by an order prohibiting any party engaging in the misuse of the discovery process from supporting or opposing designated claims or defenses,” and may also “impose an evidence sanction by an order prohibiting any party engaging in the misuse of the discovery process from introducing designated matters in evidence.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030, subds. (a)-(b).) Additionally, “[t]he court’s inherent power to curb abuses and promote fair process extends to the preclusion of evidence.” (Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co. v. Superior Court (1988) 200 Cal.App.3d 272, 288.)

Defendant seeks orders (1) precluding Plaintiff from being called by her attorneys to testify at trial; (2) excluding Plaintiff from the courtroom during trial and voir dire; and (3) precluding Plaintiff’s attorneys from presenting evidence about what happened during the subject incident beyond (a) what may be seen in the incident video, and (b) the testimony and statement of eyewitness Tim Bovey.

Defendant explains that it attempted to take Plaintiff’s deposition on May 4, 2022, but she refused to be sworn in as a witness, and the deposition ended. (McCune Decl. ¶ 3.) Defendant attempted again to take Plaintiff’s deposition on December 29, 2023. (McCune Decl. ¶ 4.) After being sworn in, Plaintiff refused to answer questions about the alleged events, became aggressive, and began hitting and throwing things. (McCune Decl. ¶ 4 & Ex. B.) Defendant identifies specific deposition excerpts to demonstrate that “[i]t is clear that plaintiff does not intend to testify in deposition about what happened in the incident.” (Motion at pp. 7-10.) Defendant contends that it has been deprived of its statutory right to depose Plaintiff, and compelling a third deposition would futile. (Id. at p. 11.)

Plaintiff argues that “Defendant’s motion to exclude evidence based on her inability to sit for a part 3 of her deposition effectively weaponizes her disabilities and trauma, seeking to silence her by excluding the very evidence necessary to substantiate her claims.” (Opposition at p. 1.) According to Plaintiff, “Plaintiff’s responses during the depositions—including her emotional outbursts, crying, screaming, her refusal to speak and emotional shutdowns—are all consistent with the behavioral patterns observed in individuals with ASD, particularly when placed in high-stress situations.” (Id. at p. 4.) Plaintiff argues that there is no deliberate refusal to provide discovery because Plaintiff’s cognitive impairments hinder her ability to provide clear testimony. (Id. at p. 7.)

With respect to precluding Plaintiff from being called by her attorneys to testify at trial, the motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s inability to complete her deposition prejudices Defendant’s preparation for trial testimony. Additionally, Plaintiff’s counsel indicated to Defendant’s counsel that “we are not going to be producing plaintiff for a deposition. Accordingly, we will not be calling her to testify at trial.” (McCune Decl., Ex. E.)

With respect to excluding Plaintiff from the courtroom during trial and voir dire, the motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Court will not prejudge Plaintiff’s courtroom conduct, but Defendant may renew its motion if necessary based on events at trial.

With respect to precluding Plaintiff’s presentation of evidence about what happened during the subject incident beyond what may be seen in the incident video and the testimony and statement of an eyewitness, the motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Defendant contends that “[w]here plaintiff has refused to testify about what happened in the restroom, plaintiff should not be able to introduce such facts from other sources.” (Motion at p. 16.) Any other evidence remains subject to the rules of evidence, and introduction of alternative exhibits and/or testimony can be handled pursuant to valid objections.

Plaintiff contends that the deposition video is necessary “to illustrate the profound damages caused by Defendants’ negligence,” and “[w]hile the video may be emotionally impactful, it is precisely this impact that underscores its necessity—it authentically illustrates the depth of Plaintiff’s suffering in a manner that written records and secondhand testimony cannot replicate.” (Opposition at pp. 11-12.) The parties are ordered to meet and confer about what, if any, portions of the deposition video they will stipulate to admitting. If there is no agreement, then the Court will consider the proposed evidence pursuant to motions in limine and/or objections at trial.

The motion is GRANTED IN PART as set forth above. The motion is otherwise denied without prejudice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMCDEPT48@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit. If all parties in the case submit on the tentative ruling, no appearances before the Court are required unless a companion hearing (for example, a Case Management Conference) is also on calendar.

Hon. Thomas D. Long

Judge of the Superior Court