This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 10/15/2020 at 07:14:49 (UTC).

JANE DOE VS BURBANK UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT ET AL

Case Summary

On 04/04/2018 JANE DOE filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against BURBANK UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are YOLANDA OROZCO and AMY D. HOGUE. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****0710

  • Filing Date:

    04/04/2018

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

YOLANDA OROZCO

AMY D. HOGUE

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs and Petitioners

DOE JANE

DOE AN INDIVIDUAL JANE

Defendants and Respondents

DOES 1-40

SURREY CLARKE ALEXANDER

BURBANK UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

V&S VIDEO PRODUCTIONS

V & S VIDEO PRODUCTIONS

SURRY CLARKE ALEXANDER

BURBANK UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT A PUBLIC ENTITY

SURREY AN INDIVIDUAL CLARKE ALEXANDER

V & S VIDEO PRODUCTIONS A BUSINESS ENTITY FORM UNKINOWN

JOHN BURROUGHS HIGH SCHOOL VOCAL MUSIC ASSOCIATION

Defendant and Cross Plaintiff

JOHN BURROUGHS HIGH SCHOOL VOCAL MUSIC ASSOCIATION

Defendant and Cross Defendant

SURREY AN INDIVIDUAL CLARKE ALEXANDER

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Defendant, Plaintiff and Cross Plaintiff Attorneys

OLSON SONALI

HOWARD JOHN H. ESQ.

LOWTHORP RICHARDS MCMILLAN MILLER &

HOWARD JOHN HENRY ESQ.

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorney

HOWARD JOHN H. ESQ.

Defendant, Respondent and Cross Plaintiff Attorneys

LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM R. FUHRMAN

WILLIAMS JILL

WILLIAM R. FUHRMAN LAW OFFICE OF

FUHRMAN WILLIAM R. LAW OFFICES OF

CARPENTER ROTHANS & DUMONT

DUNKEL YARON FELIX

FUHRMAN WILLIAM ROBERT

FUHRMAN WILLIAM

OLSON SONALI

Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM R. FUHRMAN

WILLIAMS JILL

FUHRMAN WILLIAM R. LAW OFFICES OF

Defendant and Cross Defendant Attorney

FUHRMAN WILLIAM

 

Court Documents

Opposition - OPPOSITION PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION (AND REQUEST TO LATER FILE FURTHER OPP) TO BUSD'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

6/4/2020: Opposition - OPPOSITION PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION (AND REQUEST TO LATER FILE FURTHER OPP) TO BUSD'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Notice - NOTICE EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF JANE DOES OPPOSITION TO BURBANK UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICTS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES

6/12/2020: Notice - NOTICE EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF JANE DOES OPPOSITION TO BURBANK UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICTS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES

Reply - REPLY TO PLAINTIFF OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL JANE DOE'S FURTHER RESPONSES TO DEMAND FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET TWO; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

12/13/2019: Reply - REPLY TO PLAINTIFF OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL JANE DOE'S FURTHER RESPONSES TO DEMAND FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET TWO; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

Proof of Service by Mail

12/2/2019: Proof of Service by Mail

Notice of Posting of Jury Fees

11/22/2019: Notice of Posting of Jury Fees

Motion to Compel - MOTION TO COMPEL NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION SET TWO

11/1/2019: Motion to Compel - MOTION TO COMPEL NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION SET TWO

Notice of Motion

8/29/2019: Notice of Motion

Notice of Ruling

9/4/2019: Notice of Ruling

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO COMPEL THIRD-PARTY BURBANK POLICE DEPART...)

7/26/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO COMPEL THIRD-PARTY BURBANK POLICE DEPART...)

Separate Statement

6/21/2019: Separate Statement

Proof of Service by Mail

5/31/2019: Proof of Service by Mail

Proof of Service by Mail

5/31/2019: Proof of Service by Mail

 

Docket Entries

  • 08/02/2021
  • Hearing08/02/2021 at 09:00 AM in Department D at 600 East Broadway, Glendale, CA 91206; Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/27/2021
  • Hearing07/27/2021 at 09:00 AM in Department D at 600 East Broadway, Glendale, CA 91206; Final Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/30/2021
  • Hearing06/30/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department D at 600 East Broadway, Glendale, CA 91206; Order to Show Cause Re: Mandatory Settlement Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/08/2021
  • Hearing01/08/2021 at 09:00 AM in Department D at 600 East Broadway, Glendale, CA 91206; Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/08/2021
  • Hearing01/08/2021 at 09:00 AM in Department D at 600 East Broadway, Glendale, CA 91206; Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/08/2021
  • Hearing01/08/2021 at 09:00 AM in Department D at 600 East Broadway, Glendale, CA 91206; Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/16/2020
  • DocketNotice of Partial Settlement; Filed by JANE DOE, an individual (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/11/2020
  • Docketat 09:00 AM in Department D; Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment (filed on behalf of Defendant John Burroughs High School Vocal Music Association) - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/21/2020
  • Docketat 09:00 AM in Department D; Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment (or in the alt, for Summary Adjudication of Issues filed on behalf of Burbank Unified School District) - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/10/2020
  • Docketat 09:00 AM in Department D; Jury Trial - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    Read MoreRead Less
169 More Docket Entries
  • 05/18/2018
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/18/2018
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/12/2018
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons (A/T TALIN "DOE", RECEPTIONIST, BY SUBSTITUTED SERVICE A/T SERVIBG MATT HILL, SUPERINTENDENT, BY SUBSTITUTED SERVICE, WITH PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL (ATTACHMENT)); Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/12/2018
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/04/2018
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by JANE DOE, an individual (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/04/2018
  • DocketCOMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/04/2018
  • DocketComplaint

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/04/2018
  • DocketSummons (on Complaint)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/04/2018
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/04/2018
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC700710    Hearing Date: December 20, 2019    Dept: NCD

TENTATIVE RULING

Calendar: 10

Date: 12/20/19

Case No: BC 700710 Trial Date: August 10, 2020

Case Name: Doe v. Burbank Unified School District, et al.

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES

TO DOCUMENT DEMANDS

(CCP § 2031.310)

Moving Party: Defendant Burbank Unified School District

Responding Party: Plaintiff Jane Doe

RELIEF REQUESTED:

Further responses and production of responsive documents to Demand for Production, Set Two

FACTUAL BACKGROUND:

Plaintiff Jane Doe alleges that while she was a high school student at John Burrough High School, in the Burbank Unified School District, defendant Burbank Unified School District (“the District”) hired defendant V&S Video Productions to film and record high school activities, including events in the Fine/Performing Arts Department, in which plaintiff was active.

Plaintiff alleges that defendant Clarke Alexander Surrey was an employee of V&S, who became a volunteer at the high school, and that he was a sexual predator, who, when plaintiff was 15-years old and Surrey was 19-years-old, began to pursue plaintiff for a sexual relationship. Plaintiff alleges that a relationship began in the spring of 2011 and was not concealed from others at the high school. Plaintiff alleges that employees and volunteers of the District observed Surrey and plaintiff cuddling, hugging, kissing, and plaintiff sitting in Surrey’s lap on school grounds or at school events. Plaintiff alleges that instead of taking action to prevent or stop the relationship, employees of the District increased Surrey’s volunteer role at the school, and ultimately offered Surrey official employment in August of 2012, when it hired Surrey to be its assistant technology Director for the high school theater technology group.

Plaintiff alleges that the relationship continued for several years, and during this time Surrey abused and assaulted plaintiff emotionally, physically and sexually, and caused her severe emotional harm, mental anguish and emotional distress. It is also alleged that Surrey pursued and preyed on another minor, about which District volunteers and employees knew or should have known.

Surrey was criminally charged in connection with engaging in sexual acts with plaintiff while she was a minor, and on February 24, 2016, plead out wherein the court found him guilty of a Penal Code § 261.5(c) felony.

ANALYSIS:

Under CCP § 2017.010, “any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action..., if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” The Section specifically provides that “[d]iscovery may relate to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or of any other party to the action,” and that discovery “may be obtained of the identity and location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter, as well as of the existence, description, nature, custody, condition and location of any document, electronically stored information, tangible thing, or land or other property.”

CCP § 2031.310 provides that a party demanding a document inspection may move for an order compelling further responses to the demand if the demanding party deems that:

“(1) A statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete.

(2) A representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive.

(3) An objection in the response is without merit or too general.”

Under CCP § 2031.310 (b)(1), “The motion shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the inspection demand.”

The burden is on the moving party to show both relevance to the subject matter and specific facts justifying discovery. Glenfed Develop. Corp. v. Superior Court (1997, 2nd Dist.) 53 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1117. Once good cause is established by the moving party, the burden then shifts to the responding party to justify any objections made to document disclosure. See Hartbrodt v. Burke (1996, 2nd Dist.) 42 Cal.App.4th 168, 172-174.

Request No. 23

This request seeks:

“A copy of the entire recording taken of the psychiatric examination conducted of plaintiff by Anne C. Welty, M.D., from the start of the recording to the end of the recording.”

The response was, “Objection: Attorney work product privilege.”

The moving papers indicate that defendant retained Dr. Welty to examine plaintiff, that plaintiff audio recorded that conversation, and that it is clearly discoverable as consisting of a recording of an examination conducted by the moving party. This is sufficient good cause to shift the burden to plaintiff to justify the objection.

The opposition argues that the request seeks to take undue advantage of the industry and efforts of plaintiff in choosing to record the examination, and plaintiff’s attorney in expending time and effort in preparing the case for trial. This does not render the recording protected work product, and no case law is cited pursuant to which such a recording may be withheld from the other side.

The recording was evidently made pursuant to CCP § 2032.510, which provides, in connection with examinations:

“(a) The attorney for the examinee or for a party producing the examinee, or that attorney's representative, shall be permitted to attend and observe any physical examination conducted for discovery purposes, and to record stenographically or by audio technology any words spoken to or by the examinee during any phase of the examination.”

Counsel for defendant was not entitled under the statute to expend work to take a recording of the examination, so counsel for plaintiff has not engaged in some superior effort in this respect. There is no reason why defendant should be prevented from seeking discovery of this recording.

The moving papers indicate that plaintiff’s counsel has obtained a copy of the District’s retained expert Dr. Welty’s report, as a copy was mailed by defendant’s counsel. [Dunkel Decl. ¶ 6].

The motion refers to CCP § 2032.630, which provides:

“By demanding and obtaining a report of a physical or mental examination under Section 2032.610 or 2032.620, or by taking the deposition of the examiner, other than under Article 3 (commencing with Section 2034.410) of Chapter 18, the party who submitted to, or produced another for, a physical or mental examination waives in the pending action, and in any other action involving the same controversy, any privilege, as well as any protection for work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010), that the party or other examinee may have regarding reports and writings as well as the testimony of every other physician, psychologist, or licensed health care practitioner who has examined or may thereafter examine the party or other examinee in respect of the same physical or mental condition.”

It would appear then that any privilege, including protection for work product, has been waived by statute.

The opposition does not really address this argument but notes in a footnote that plaintiff is not depriving defendant of the recording, but defendant is free to purchase the recording directly from the third party who recorded it, as plaintiff did. Plaintiff also states, “As an offer of good faith, Jane will share the recording with BUSD if it agrees to split the cost.” [Opp. p.3, n. 1].

This is nonsense. Plaintiff has failed to justify the objection, and defendant is entitled to have the recording produced for inspection and copying, and defendant may pay its own costs to reproduce the recording. The motion is granted, and a further response, without objection, should be made, and inspection and copying ordered permitted.

Request No. 24:

This request seeks

“Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 2032.630 and § 2032.640 any and all reports and writings by any mental health care provider who has examined Plaintiff, including any and all consultant, retained expert, family therapist, psychiatrist, psychologist, or any other practitioner. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 2032.630, all privileges and work product have been waived.”

The response is:

“Objection: Calls for the premature disclosure of expert witness information, attorney work product, and equally available to the requesting party. Without waiving this objection, plaintiff responds. After a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry, plaintiff has no documents in their possession responsive to this request which has not been previously produced.”

This response is clearly not Code compliant, and a further response can be ordered on this ground alone. The District argues that plaintiff is not entitled to refuse to produce responsive documents on the

ground she already produced them without identifying with particularity the document to which the objection is made.

As set forth above, under CCP § 2032.630, since plaintiff has obtained the report of Dr. Welty, plaintiff has waived in the pending action, “any privilege, as well as any protection for work product” that she may have with respect to the documents requested.

The District also relies on CCP § 2032.640, which provides:

“A party receiving a demand for a report under Section 2032.610 is entitled at the time of compliance to receive in exchange a copy of any existing written report of any examination of the same condition by any other physician, psychologist, or licensed health care practitioner. In addition, that party is entitled to receive promptly any later report of any previous or subsequent examination of the same condition, by any physician, psychologist, or licensed health care practitioner.”

The opposition does not attempt to justify the response or any of the objections but argues that plaintiff properly answered the request because she already produced the mental health records she has. There is no authority cited under which it is a proper response to discovery that responsive material has already been produced.

In connection with requests for production, under CCP section 2031.210, a response shall either be a statement of compliance, a representation that the party lacks the ability to comply, or an objection.

With respect to a statement of compliance, CCP section 2031.220 requires:

“A statement that a party to whom an inspection demand has been directed will comply with the particular demand shall state that the production, inspection, and related activity demanded will be allowed either in whole or in part, and that all documents or things in the demanded category that are in the possession, custody, or control of that party and to which no objection is being made will be included in the production.”

This is the proper response which must be made by plaintiff here, without objection.

To the extent the response here, that “plaintiff has no documents in their possession responsive to this request which has not been previously produced,” is intended to be an objection that plaintiff should not be required to produce the documents again, the response does not comply with the Code, which requires, under CCP section 2031.240:

“(b) If the responding party objects to the demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling of an item or category of item, the response shall do both of the following:  (1) Identify with particularity any document, tangible thing, land, or electronically stored information falling within any category of item in the demand to which an objection is being made.  (2) Set forth clearly the extent of, and the specific ground for, the objection. If an objection is based on a claim of privilege, the particular privilege invoked shall be stated. If an objection is based on a claim that the information sought is protected work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010), that claim shall be expressly asserted.”

Again, the objection itself that the material has already been produced has not been justified here. To the extent the objection is that it would be burdensome or oppressive to produce again, this objection is not supported by any facts. In any case, even if there were a legitimate reason to object to producing material again, the moving papers appear justified in insisting that the responsive documents which have already been produced be identified with particularity.

The objections are not justified, and the motion is granted, and plaintiff ordered to serve a statement of compliance which complies with the Code, without objection, and to produce all responsive documents.

RULING:

Motion to Compel Plaintiff Jane Doe’s Further Responses to Demand for Production of Documents, Set Two is GRANTED. Plaintiff Jane Doe is ordered to serve further responses to Requests Nos. 23 and 24, without objection, and inspection is to be permitted of all responsive materials within 10 days. Defendant has failed to justify objection, which the court finds have been waived or are without merit, so further responses are to be without objection. The further responses must fully comply with CCP §§ 20131.210, 2031.220 and 2031.230, and consist of statements of compliance which must include that plaintiff will comply with the particular demand, including a statement that the production, inspection, and related activity demanded will be allowed either in whole or in part, and that all documents or things in the demanded category that are in the possession, custody, or control of defendant will be included in the production. The Court does not find acceptable a response that responsive material has already been produced.