Case Name: Jane Doe v. Santa Clara Unified School District, et al.
Case No.: 2014-1-CV-265725

Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents by Plaintiff Jane Doe

Factual and Procedural Background

This case involves multiple occurrences of sexual molestation, abuse, harassment, assault and battery on plaintiff Jane Doe (“Plaintiff”), formerly a minor, from approximately 2012 through September 2013. (See Complaint at ¶¶ 1, 11.) Plaintiff was allegedly the victim of unlawful sexual abuse and molestation and other misconduct by her teacher, Hugo Cortez Guzman (“Mr. Guzman”). (Id. at ¶ 1.) Mr. Guzman is currently facing criminal charges brought by the County of Santa Clara, including unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor, a violation of California Penal Code section 261.5, subdivision (a). (Id. at ¶ 5.) Plaintiff alleges that defendant Santa Clara Unified School District (“District”) breached its duty to adequately investigate, hire, train, and supervise the teacher and to protect Plaintiff from harm. (Id. at ¶¶ 26-41.) Plaintiff also claims that the District created a dangerous condition at the high school by failing to maintain, inspect, secure, manage, and supervise the school premises. (Id. at ¶¶ 42-47.)

On May 23, 2014, Plaintiff filed the operative complaint against defendants setting forth causes of action for: (1) negligence; (2) dangerous condition of public property; and (3) negligence. Thereafter, the District filed its answer asserting various affirmative defenses.

On September 16, 2014, Plaintiff served the District with Request for Production of Documents (Set One) (“RPD”). (See Declaration of Sophia M. Aslami at ¶ 3; Exhibit 1.) In particular, RPD Nos. 35-37 seek documents pertaining to complaints, claims, and lawsuits involving sexual conduct between a teacher employed by the District and a minor. (Ibid.)

On December 5, 2014, the District served Plaintiff with RPD responses. (See Declaration of Sophia M. Aslami at ¶ 4; Exhibit 2.) With respect to RPD Nos. 35-37, the District did not provide any responsive documents but stated the following:

“Responding Party lacks the ability to comply with this request, in whole. Responding Party has conducted a diligent search and inquiry and does not have any responsive items in its possession, custody or control, other than documents already produced herein that relate to the instant claim. Responding Party does not believe any other responsive items exist, or have ever existed.”

(Ibid.)
On March 2, 2016, Plaintiff served the District with a supplemental request for RPD. (See Declaration of Sophia M. Aslami at ¶ 4; Exhibit 3.)

On April 5, 2016, the District served a response stating that it did not have any additional documents to produce. (See Declaration of Sophia M. Aslami at ¶ 6; Exhibit 4.)

On March 24, 2016, Plaintiff served the District with a Notice of Taking Deposition of District Employees. (See Declaration of Sophia M. Aslami at ¶ 7; Exhibit 5.) The deposition notice included a request for production of documents (Nos. 35-37) for the witnesses to bring to their deposition any documents regarding complaints, claims, or lawsuits involving inappropriate sexual conduct between a School District teacher and minor. (Ibid.) The District did not serve any objection the document request in the deposition notice. (Id. at ¶ 8.)

On April 21, 2016, Plaintiff deposed Brad Syth (“Mr. Syth”), the Asst. Superintendent of Human Resources employed by the District at the time of Plaintiff’s abuse. (See Declaration of Sophia M. Aslami at ¶¶ 7-8.) During deposition, Mr. Syth testified that the District had possession of investigation files relating to the District’s investigation of at least three employees (Edward Slate, Steve Cox, and Joe Miller) that were accused or charged with sexual abuse of a minor. (Id. at ¶ 9; Exhibit 6.) The District did not produce any documents at Mr. Syth’s deposition. (Id. at ¶ 10.)

Following the deposition, the parties met and conferred regarding production of the investigation files. (See Declaration of Sophia M. Aslami at ¶¶ 11-12; Exhibits 7-8.) The District refused to produce the investigation files and Plaintiff now seeks intervention from the Court to resolve the discovery dispute.

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to RPD Nos. 35, 36, and 37. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (a).) The District has filed written opposition. No reply papers were filed.

Trial is set for May 16, 2016.

Motion to Compel Further Responses to RPD

Plaintiff moves to compel the District to provide a further response to RPD Nos. 35, 36, and 37 because the investigations files are directly relevant or likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence in this case.

Legal Standard

If, after service of a deposition notice, a party to the action or…employee of a party…without having served a valid objection under Section 2025.410, fails to…produce for inspection any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice, the party giving the notice may move for an order compelling the…production for inspection of any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (a).)

Good Cause Requirement

A motion to compel further production shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the production for inspection of any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (b)(1).) Justification for discovery is found where specific facts show the documents are necessary for effective trial preparation or to prevent surprise at trial. (Associated Brewers Dist. Co., Inc. v. Sup. Ct. (1967) 65 Cal.2d 583, 587.) The fact that there is no alternative source for the information sought is an important factor in establishing good cause. (Ibid.)

Plaintiff argues that good cause exists for production because the investigation files pertaining to Edward Slate, Steve Cox, and Joe Miller are directly relevant to Plaintiff’s claims against the District (negligence, negligent supervision/failure to warn; negligent hiring/retention; and negligent failure to train or educate) and are necessary to assist Plaintiff in preparing for trial. (See Declaration of Sophia M. Aslami at ¶ 16.) The documents contain facts relating to the District’s notice of sexual predators within its employ that took place before Mr. Guzman was hired as a teacher and before Plaintiff’s sexual abuse by Mr. Guzman. (Ibid.) The notice to the District includes red flags and/or warning signs of child sexual abuse. (Ibid.) Thus, the files are highly relevant to the issue of whether the District met the standard of care for a public school district with regard to an employee accused or charged with sexual abuse of a minor (i.e., the file will contain facts of what action, if any, the District took in response to its investigation, whether it developed adequate training and supervision policies and procedures subsequent to its investigation, whether it took action to warn/train/educate students and parents of the risk of child sexual abuse by a District employee, etc.). (Ibid.) Having established good cause for production, the Court considers the validity of any objections by the District to document production.

Validity of Objections

In opposition, the District argues that it has already provided Plaintiff with a statement of inability to comply with respect to previous document requests. However, as stated above, the District did not serve any formal objections to the document requests in the deposition notice. Thus, this argument is being made for the first time in opposition to the motion. To the extent that no responsive documents exist, the District should state so in a code compliant further response of inability to comply with respect to RPD Nos. 35, 36, and 37 in the deposition notice.

Alternatively, the District claims that third party privacy interests outweigh Plaintiff’s need for discovery. “When the constitutional right to privacy is involved, the party seeking discovery of a private matter must do more than satisfy the section 2017.010 standard. The party seeking discovery must demonstrate a compelling need for discovery, and that compelling need must be so strong as to outweigh the privacy right when these two competing interests are carefully balanced. [Citations.] A discovery proponent may demonstrate compelling need by establishing the discovery sought is directly relevant and essential to the fair resolution of the underlying lawsuit. [Citations.]” (Digital Music News LLC v. Sup. Ct. (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 216, 229.)

Contrary to the District’s arguments, the requested documents appear to be directly relevant to issues in the case. Any documents related to complaints, lawsuits or claims made against teachers involving sexual assault are relevant to Plaintiff’s negligence claims and may address what actions, if any, taken by the District in regards to such claims. The District argues that any prior incidents are completely unrelated in time and space to Plaintiff’s burden in this case. However, “the fact that the other molestation incidents may have been different from the one that allegedly occurred here does not mean the other-perpetrator evidence was not discoverable. While the trial court will have to assess whether the information revealed in the documents is admissible (taking into account similarity, remoteness, prejudice, etc.), these issues are not dispositive at the discovery stage. A document may be discoverable even if it is unlikely to be admitted at trial.” (Lopez v. Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc. 2016 WL 146546416 at p. *15.)

Also, as Plaintiff points out, the parties have already entered into a stipulated protective order to address any third party privacy concerns. (See Declaration of Sophia M. Aslami at Exhibit 10.) Under the stipulated protective order, the parties agreed that there would be no disclosure of third party information outside of this case and that any such document would be filed under seal with the Court. (Ibid.) The District fails to even address the stipulated protective order and its impact on third party privacy rights in opposition to the motion. Finally, there appears to be no alternative source of information particularly since discovery is closed, no further depositions can be noticed, and trial is less than three weeks away. Consequently, Plaintiff is entitled to a code compliant further response to the document requests.

Disposition

The motion to compel a further response to RPD Nos. 35, 36, and 37 is GRANTED. The District shall serve a verified code compliant further response, without objections, and produce all non-privileged responsive documents within 5 calendar days of this Order. To the extent that any documents are withheld on the basis of privilege, the District shall provide the appropriate privilege log.