IC VS COMPTON UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT ET AL

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC665118    Hearing Date: December 19, 2019    Dept: A

# 12. I.C. v. Compton Unified School District, et al.

Case No.: BC665118

Matter on calendar for: Motion to Compel Further

Tentative ruling:

1. Background

   This is a personal injury action. Plaintiff I.C., a minor through his Guardian ad Litem Silvia Melendez, was engaged in a physical altercation with another student at Plaintiff’s high school when Defendant Marco Godinez, Plaintiff’s art teacher, intervened to stop the fight. The intervention led to Plaintiff suffering fractures to his leg. Defendant Godinez was employed by Defendant Compton Unified School District (“CUSD”).

   The First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) alleges negligence.

   Plaintiff now moves to compel further responses to his request for production, set three, and responses to special interrogatories, set three. An opposition and reply have been filed and considered.

   For the reasons set forth below, the Court denies the motion.

2. Standard

California Code of Civil Procedure § 2031.310 allows for a party demanding the production of document to move for an order to compel further responses if: (1) a statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete, (2) a representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive, and (3) an objection in the response is without merit or too general. The motion must set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand. (C.C.P., § 2031.310(b)(1).)

If a timely motion to compel has been filed, the burden is on the responding party to justify any objection or failure fully to answer. (Coy v. Superior Court (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220–221 [addressing a motion to compel further responses to interrogatories]; see also Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255.)

1. Analysis

   1. Timing

Defendant’s timing argument, that Plaintiff did not bring the motion within the statutory 45-day time frame, is unpersuasive because Plaintiff did file the motion, but the Court took it off-calendar to conduct an informal discovery conference.

1. Merits

   Plaintiff is seeking information about other fights in which teachers intervened at Dominguez High School. The requests for further production seek information on fights between September 1, 2013 and September 19, 2016, while the special interrogatories seek information between January 2015 and present. Plaintiff argues the related incidents are necessary to establish whether Defendant Godinez acted within the standard of care. Defendants argue the requested information is irrelevant, impermissible, and overly burdensome.

   The Court finds Plaintiff’s argument to be unpersuasive. The FAC’s allegations against Defendant CUSD are based on vicarious liability for Defendant Godinez’s actions. “The respondeat superior doctrine makes an employer liable, irrespective of fault, for an employee’s tortious conduct in the scope of employment. [Citation.]” (Diaz v. Carcamo (2011) 51 Cal.4th 1148, 1154.) Determining if Defendant Godinez used ordinary care “ ‘depends upon the circumstances of each particular case and is to be determined as a fact with refence to the situation and knowledge of the parties.’ [Citation.]” (Hemady v. Long Beach Unified Sch. Dist. (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 566, 580.) Examining all other fights at the school is an overly broad effort at evaluating Defendant Godinez’s negligence; the case turns on the particular facts of the incident itself. The requested information does not aid in establishing a standard of care as to how a teacher is to intervene between students, and any potential probative value of introducing such additional unqualified or undefined “fighting” scenarios will unnecessarily distract the jury, confuse the issues, and lead to an undue consumption of time.

   Additionally, acquiring this information would be unduly burdensome. The high school usually has around 1,700 students during any given year and the school does not readily track information concerning all student fights. (Decl. Perez, ¶ 4–5.) Setting aside the vague description as to the definition of a fight, the school would be required to manually search each student file numbering in the thousands.

   The motion to compel further is denied. However, the Court finds that Plaintiff acted with substantial justification in bringing the motion to preserve their record and declines to issue a monetary sanction.

1. Ruling

   The motion to compel further discovery is denied.

   Next dates:

   Notice: