JANE AC DOE VS BURBANK UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT ET AL

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC693260    Hearing Date: February 28, 2020    Dept: A

Doe v Burbank Unified School District

Discovery motion

ALLEGATIONS:

The instant action arises from the negligent supervision over Plaintiff Jane A.C. Doe (“Plaintiff”), an adult student who is non-verbal and autistic, by Defendants Burbank Unified School District (“BUSD”); and Emilio Urioste, Jr. (“Urioste” and together the “Defendants”). Plaintiff alleges that another student with a prior history of assault, Jared Dillion Drucker (“Drucker”), assaulted Plaintiff on or about January 27, 2017, by inappropriately touching Plaintiff on her buttocks and vaginal area while in a line ordering food.

Plaintiff filed her Complaint on February 07, 2017, alleging a single cause of action sounding in Negligence. Susana A. Aguirre was appointed Plaintiff’s Guardian Ad Litem on November 29, 2018, and Defendants filed an Answer on March 20, 2019.

PRESENTATION:

Plaintiff filed the instant motion on September 20, 2019. Defendants opposed the motion on December 20, 2019, and a reply brief was filed on February 21, 2020.

RELIEF REQUESTED:

Plaintiff moves to compel further responses to Requests for Production Nos. 2, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 26.

DISCUSSION:

Standard of Review – Code of Civil Procedure §2031.310 provides that a party may bring a motion to compel further to Requests for Production where the responding party provides inadequate, incomplete, or evasive responses, or the objections are too general or without merit. The propounding party must submit a declaration under Code of Civ. Proc. §2016.040 stating facts demonstrating a good faith and reasonable effort to informally resolve all issues raised by the motion. Code of Civ. Proc. §2031.310(b)(2). A motion to compel further responses to Requests for Production must further specifically identify facts showing good cause for the discovery. Code of Civ. Proc. §2031.310(b)(1). The motion must be brought within 45 days of service of the responses or supplemental responses. Code of Civ. Proc. §2031.310(c). Sanctions are mandatory against the party or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further unless the party acted with substantial justification or the circumstances make imposition of sanctions unjust. Code of Civ. Proc. §2031.310(h).

Code of Civil Procedure §2031.310(b)(1) requires the movant to set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the production for inspection of any document described in the request for production or deposition notice.  In law and motion practice, factual evidence is supplied to the court by way of declarations.  Calcor Space Facility v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal. App. 4th 216, 224 (rejecting facts supporting the production of documents that were in a separate statement because the document was not verified and did not constitute evidence).  In Calcor, the Court of Appeal issued a writ of mandate issue directing the trial court to vacate its order compelling the defendant to produce records because the plaintiff had failed to provide specific facts showing good cause for their production. Subsequently, in Digital Music News LLC v Superior Court (2014) 226 Cal. App. 4th 216 at 224, the court identified the manner for establishing good cause under Calcor: “To establish good cause, a discovery proponent must identify a disputed fact that is of consequence in the action and explain how the discovery sought will tend in reason to prove or disprove that fact or lead to other evidence that will tend to prove or disprove the fact.

The same issue identified in Calcor exists here.  The Declaration of Megan Mangassarian does not include any specific facts showing good cause for the inspection of the documents sought in each of the requests for production at issue.  Counsel does not offer any sufficient specific facts regarding the documents sought, the requests for production, or the disputed facts that are of consequence in the action to explain how the discovery sought will tend to prove or disprove the disputed fact or lead to other evidence that will tend to prove or disprove the fact.  This does not comply with the requirements of Code of Civ. Proc. §2031.310(b)(1) as set forth in Calcor and Digital Music.

Accordingly, the motion will be denied.

---

RULING: below,

In the event the parties submit on this tentative ruling, or a party requests a signed order or the court in its discretion elects to sign a formal order, the following form will be either electronically signed or signed in hard copy and entered into the court’s records.

ORDER

Plaintiff Jane A.C. Doe’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to RFPs came on regularly for hearing on February 28, 2020, with appearances/submissions as noted in the minute order for said hearing, and the court, being fully advised in the premises, did then and there rule as follows:

THE MOTION IS DENIED.

DATE: _______________ _______________________________

JUDGE