2013-00140551-CU-DF

Larry Wimberly vs. Sheila Kearney

Nature of Proceeding: Motion for Protective Order

Filed By: Paul, Jonathan B.

Defendant County of Sacramento, Sacramento County Department of Heath and
Human Services, Sacramento County Child Protective Services Division, Sheila
Kearney, Yong Ueda, Lisa Boulger, Sheryl Matranga, Michelle Callejas and Ann
Edwards motion for protective order staying discovery pending the Juvenile Court
ruling on defendants’ petition for access and disclosure of juvenile case files pursuant
to Welfare & Institutions Code section 827 is granted.

All discovery is stayed pending the ruling of the Juvenile Court on the petitions to
obtain access to juvenile records in Case No. 231107, Case No. 231108 and Case
No.210284. At the time that the Petition for Juvenile Records is ruled upon,
Defendants shall file and serve a Notice of that ruling and request that the discovery
stay be lifted.

Plaintiff alleges that in 2010 and 2011, defendant Kearney defamed him in front of prison officials by accusing him of molesting his then two year old daughter in 2002
and later filed a case in Juvenile Court making false allegations of child molestation.
Defendant Kearny is alleged to be a social worker on behalf of Child Protective
Services who alienated plaintiff’s children from him and terminated their relationship
with him. Kearny is alleged to have also falsely stated in the Juvenile Court
proceedings that plaintiff “kicked Robin Bishop in the stomach while pregnant.”
Defendant Ueda is also alleged to have slandered plaintiff.

Defendants have filed petitions in the Juvenile Court to obtain the records regarding
plaintiff’s children who were allegedly alienated from him due to defendants’
“defamation.”

Pursuant to the California Welfare & Institutions Code, juvenile cases records are
confidential and access to said documents is prohibited absent approval of a petition
for disclosure pursuant to Welfare Institutions Code Section 827. Moreover, pursuant
to the standing order of the Sacramento Superior Juvenile
Court, access and copying of juvenile court records will not be permitted absent the
approval of a petition by the juvenile courts. Defendants seek a protective order that all
discovery be stayed pending a ruling by the juvenile court on defendants’ petitions filed
in Juvenile Case No. 231107, Case No. 231108 and Case No.210284.

Defendants have begun the process of petitioning the juvenile court for unrestricted
access to the aforementioned case files as all files concerning those minors are
necessary to the county’s ability to assess its potential liability, defend itself in this
litigation, and to respond to plaintiffs discovery requests in this matter. (Decl. Paul, 12)

Plaintiff has propounded requests for production of documents upon defendants,
DHHS and CPS; as well as interrogatories to defendant Sheila Kearney all of which
seek information about the aforementioned juvenile court records and which
specifically reference Mr. Wimberly’s minor children.

California Code of Civil Procedure Sections 2017.020 and 2019.030 provides when a
protective order may issue. Pursuant to C.C.P. § 2017.020: The court shall limit the
scope of discovery if it determines that the burden, expense, or intrusiveness of that
discovery clearly outweighs the likelihood that the information sought will lead to the
discover}’ of admissible evidence. The court may make this determination pursuant to
a motion for protective order by a party or other affected person. This motion shall be
accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040. C.C.P.
Section 2017.020.

The Court finds that a protective order is warranted given that the due date of the
discovery responses is approaching and defendants are unable to respond to the
discovery without the access to the Juvenile Court records. County Counsel has
informed defendants that the individual defendants may not discuss the facts of the
Juvenile Court cases until the Juvenile Court grants the pending petitions.

Plaintiff’s reference to the Juvenile Court orders denying him access to certain
information from the County is not relevant to the issue here, which is to allow
defendants access to the materials that form the basis of plaintiff’s claims.

The prevailing party shall prepare a formal order for the Court’s signature pursuant to
C.R.C. 3.1312.