CIV534203 JONATHAN MCDOUGALL VS MANUEL SEDILLO, ET AL.

JANE DOE #1 COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
JENNY D. SMITH DAVID A. LEVY

PIAINTIFF JANE DOE #1’S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER RE JANE DOE 1’S DEPOSITION TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Jane Doe #1’s Motion for Protective Order, filed 2-14-19, is GRANTED-IN-PART and DENIED-IN-PART, as set forth below.

Additional Deposition time

On the issue of additional deposition time, Plaintiff’s Motion for Protective Order is GRANTED-IN-PART and DENIED-IN-PART. The County may depose Plaintiff for an additional five (5) hours of on-the-record time. For the reasons stated in the County’s Motion for Additional Time to Complete Plaintiff Jane Doe #1’s Deposition (filed concurrently with this motion), and given the Court’s 2-11-19 Order compelling Plaintiff to serve further discovery responses by 3-1-19 and to authorize the County to subpoena additional third-party documents (including cellular phone records), an additional five hours of deposition time is warranted.

Plaintiff has offered to give Defendant Corbett Group Homes 45 additional minutes of deposition time (9-14-19 Ketchum Decl., ¶31), which Corbett has accepted. See Corbett’s 2-19-19 Opposition brief at 3. Corbett’s additional 45 minutes shall be in addition to the County’s additional five hours.

Questions regarding Plaintiff’s intimate/sexual relations with third parties

As to questions relating to Plaintiff’s intimate/sexual relations with third parties, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED. Plaintiff seeks to prohibit questions regarding her intimate/sexual relations with third parties after the time of Defendant Sedillo-Messer’s alleged abuse. Such questions are permissible discovery.

First, Plaintiff’s citations to the Evidence Code are not dispositive, because discovery rights are broader than the issue of admissibility at trial. Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 2017 Cal.5th 531, 554 (“Under the Legislature’s “very liberal and flexible standard of relevancy,” any “doubts as to relevance should generally be resolved in favor of permitting discovery.”) Admissibility at trial is not required for purposes of discovery. The test is whether the information sought might reasonably lead to other evidence that would be admissible. Volkswagen of America, Inc. v. Sup.Ct. (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 1481, 1490-1491.

Second, for the reasons stated in both the County’s and Corbett’s 2-19-19 Opposition briefs, Plaintiff’s privacy rights under the circumstances are outweighed by the direct relevance of these questions, and Plaintiff has placed them at issue in the case. Plaintiff has stated in discovery responses, for example, that her injuries include the “impaired ability to form intimate relationships,” and has alleged that such impairment is “ongoing, not subsiding, and affect[s] her on a daily basis.” See 2-19-19 Corbett Opposition and accompanying Finn Decl; Vinson v. Superior Court (1987) 43 Cal.3d 833, 842 (“plaintiff cannot be allowed to make her very serious allegations without affording defendants an opportunity to put their truth to the test.”). Plaintiff has opened the door to these questions through her asserted claims/damages and discovery responses.

Questions regarding Plaintiff’s “financial matters”

As to questions relating to Plaintiff’s “financial matters,” Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED. Although Plaintiff’s motion refers vaguely to “financial matters,” the only apparent deposition question at issue pertained to whether Plaintiff is currently receiving financial support to care for her child. Again, discovery rights are broader than admissibility issues. Whether such discovery will ultimately be admissible at trial is a separate issue. And although parties do generally have privacy rights with respect to “financial matters,” under the circumstances, including Plaintiff’s wage loss and future earnings capacity claims, the question at issue is permissible discovery.

Plaintiff’s request for written deposition questions regarding the age 9 incident

Plaintiff argues she should not be compelled to answer the County’s questions in oral deposition regarding her alleged abuse at age 9, and that such questions should instead be posed to her in writing due to their sensitive nature. See Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.420. The motion is DENIED. Due process concerns militate in favor of permitting the County to depose Plaintiff orally on these issues (Corbett has apparently reached an alternative agreement with Plaintiff). Written deposition questions are a poor substitute for inperson testimony. This entire case involves sensitive subject matter. As to the County, the Court finds insufficient grounds to exclude this line of inquiry from the oral deposition.

If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court. Thereafter, counsel for Defendant shall prepare a written order consistent with the Court’s ruling for the Court’s signature, pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1312, and provide written notice of the ruling to all parties who have appeared in the action, as required by law and the California Rules of Court.