Case Number: BC716348 Hearing Date: December 11, 2019 Dept: 48

(1) MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS;

(2) MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS;

MOVING PARTY: (1) & (2) Plaintiff Robert Ruiz Dominguez, a minor and through guardian ad litem Juana Dominguez

RESPONDING PARTY(S): (1) & (2) Defendant Antelope Valley Union High School District

PROOF OF SERVICE:

Correct Address: (1) Yes; (2) Yes.
16/21 (CCP § 1005(b)): (1) OK. Served by mail on October 31, 2019; advanced to this date per ?; (2) OK. Served by mail on November 1, 2019; advanced to this date per ?

GRANT motion to compel further responses to special interrogatories Nos. 1 – 15, 17; GRANT request for sanctions in the amount of $3,761.65;
GRANT motion to compel further responses to requests for admission Nos. 1 – 3; GRANT request for sanctions in the amount of $1,200.00;

ANALYSIS

Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories

¿ Special Interrogatory No. 1: GRANT.

Defendant’s objection to the form of the interrogatory is OVERRULED as without merit.

Defendant’s objection on the ground of right of privacy and confidential information is OVERRULED. The interrogatory can be answered by using pseudonyms to protect student’s identities. Moreover, a teacher or District employee would be a potential witness whose identity is discoverable.

“Discovery may be obtained of the identity and location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter. . . .” CCP § 2017.010.

“[A] percipient witness’s willingness to participate in civil discovery has never [*1252] been considered relevant—witnesses may be compelled to appear and testify whether they want to or not.” Puerto v. Superior Court (2008) 158 Cal. App. 4th 1242, 1251-52.

If, for some reason, a teacher or District employee was the one who brought a gun to school, any privacy right they had would be waived or greatly outweighed by Plaintiffs’ need to discovery information regarding such incidents.

Defendant’s objections to the time period and relevance are OVERRULED. The Court orders a response to the 5 years preceding the subject gun incident, which is relevant to whether Defendant knew or should have known that safety measures were required to protect against on-campus gun violence prior to the subject gun incident, and whether the standard of care was met as to safety measures.

Defendant’s objection to burden in responding on behalf of the entire District is OVERRULED. Just how many gun incidents have there been in the past five years District wide? Again, prior incidents are relevant to the standard of care in protecting against on-campus gun violence.

Moreover, as Plaintiff points out, Defendant is required to report to the California Department of Education incidents of assault with a deadly weapon data. 5 CCR § 701 (school crime and incident reporting procedures); 5 CCR § 700(b)(2)(assault with a deadly weapon); 5 CCR § 700(h)(reportable crime); 5 CCR § 700(j)(safe school assessment). There is no persuasive argument that such data is private, confidential or difficult to gather.

¿ Special Interrogatories Nos. 2 – 15, 17: GRANT.

Defendant’s objections are OVERRULED. See above re: special interrogatory No. 1.

The contact information of security guards, school resource officers and teachers retained by the District should be ascertainable via a central database. As noted above, their contact information as potential witnesses is discoverable.

Threats or warnings made by Andrew Figueroa of which the District has knowledge are obviously relevant and the Court finds no right of privacy or confidentiality exists in threats of violence. These threats do not come within attorney-client privilege or attorney work product. Nor, obviously, do disclosures provided to teachers regarding reporting students exhibiting possible criminal actions.

The Court notes, however that only security measures taken prior to the May 11, 2018 subject incident are relevant. Any security measures taken thereafter are remedial measures which are not relevant to whether sufficient care was taken prior to the May 11, 2018 incident. Although admissibility is not the test of discoverability, there is no persuasive reason for discovery of security measures taken after the subject incident other than to suggest negligence or admission of culpability. Accordingly, all discovery responses need only cover the period up to May 11, 2018.

Further responses are due within 20 days.

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions against Defendant and its counsel, Sylvester, Oppenheim & Linde, is GRANTED, jointly and severally in the amount to of $3,761.65. Sanctions are to be paid to Plaintiff’s counsel within 20 days.

Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Admission

¿ Requests For Admission No. 1, 2, 3: GRANT.

Defendant’s objection to the form of the request is OVERRULED as without merit.

Defendant’s other objections are OVERRULED as well. See discussion above re: special interrogatories.

Further responses are due within 20 days.

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions against Defendant and its counsel, Sylvester, Oppenheim & Linde, is GRANTED, jointly and severally in the amount to of $1,200.00. Sanctions are to be paid to Plaintiff’s counsel within 20 days.