JO F VS LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT ET AL

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: ****6534    Hearing Date: December 07, 2020    Dept: W

jo f. v. los angeles unified school district, et al.

Jo. F’s MOTION to compel defendant to answer interrogatories

Date of Hearing: December 7, 2020 Trial Date: April 19, 2021

Department: W Case No.: ****6534

Moving Party: Plaintiffs Jo. F., a minor by and through his Guardian Ad Litem, and Anthony

Responding Party: Defendant LAUSD

Meet and Confer: Yes. (Rice Decl. ¶¶3-5.)

BACKGROUND

This case consists of two consolidated lawsuits. Both cases arise from the sexual molestation of students by Defendant Joaquin Diaz, when he was an employee of Defendant Los Angeles Unified School District (“LAUSD”).

Plaintiffs now move to compel answers to special interrogatories, which defendant LAUSD opposes.

[Tentative] Ruling

Plaintiff Anthony S.’s Motion to Compel Defendant to Answer Interrogatories is GRANTED.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff Anthony S. moves the court for an order directing Defendant LAUSD to identify an important potential witness to the events at issue in this lawsuit, Pablo. Plaintiff contends it is their understanding that the District is not at liberty to disclose the requested information without a Court order.

“On receipt of a response to interrogatories, the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the propounding party deems that any of the following apply: (1) An answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete. (2) An exercise of the option to produce documents under Section 2030.230 is unwarranted or the required specification of those documents is inadequate. (3) An objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general.” ;(CCP ;2030.300(a).) “A motion under subdivision (a) [of CCP ; 2030.300] shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.” (CCP ;2030.300(b).) In addition, a separate statement is required. ;(CRC Rule 3.1345(a)(2).)

Special Interrogatories No. 50 of Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories, Set 4 requests LAUSD “IDENTIFY the person named Pablo that was in charge of the computers of the computer lab at Woodland Hills Academy during the 2009/2010 school year.”

LAUSD objected to the SROG on the grounds the information had been previously disclosed, including Pablo’s full name and then-occupation as well as a picture of the individual. LAUSD also objected to Pablo’s personal address and phone number on the grounds it is within the zone of privacy and thus, protected from disclosure. (See Bd. of Trustees v. Superior Court (1981) 119 Cal. App.3d 516, 528; Teamsters Local 856 v. Priceless, LLC (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 1500, 1512-14.)

Plaintiff argues they do not seek Pablo Alvarez’s personnel file or any protected information from that file such as personnel, tenure or promotion records, or other documents. It seeks only to identify a potentially critical witness so that Plaintiff can attempt to locate, subpoena and depose him.

The California Supreme Court “established a framework for evaluating potential invasions of privacy. The party asserting a privacy right must establish a legally protected privacy interest, an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in the given circumstances, and a threatened intrusion that is serious. [Citation] The party seeking information may raise in response whatever legitimate and important countervailing interests disclosure serves, while the party seeking protection may identify feasible alternatives that serve the same interests or protective measures that would diminish the loss of privacy. A court must then balance these competing considerations. [Citation]” (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 552.)

The court agrees with Plaintiff. While home contact information is generally considered private, the balance of competing interests and reasonable expectation of privacy favors disclosure in the instant matter. (Williams, supra, 3 Cal.5th at p. 554.) First, the court notes the identifying information of Pablo is directly relevant to the matter as he is purportedly a witness to the sexual abuse by Diaz. During Plaintiff Anthony S.’s deposition, Anthony S. identified Pablo as someone who saw Diaz bring Anthony S. into an otherwise empty computer room, then left them alone in apparent violation of LAUSD policy, as articulated in its Code of Conduct with Students.

Next, the court finds LAUSD has failed to establish a reasonable expectation of privacy in the address and telephone number. It is well established that identity and contact information is discoverable. (See, e.g., Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 554; Puerto v. Superior Court (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1242.) LAUSD attempts to distinguish the two cases on the grounds they involved disclosure of names and addresses of potential class members to lawsuits, who stood to gain financially as a result of the disclosure, and here, Pablo does not stand to benefit from disclosure. Rather, Pablo is likely to be forced to testify about and criticized regarding events from long ago. However, in general, there is no “protection for the identity, addresses and phone numbers of percipient witnesses. Thus, a court may not require the party seeking discovery to obtain the witnesses' consent to disclosure…” ([8:293] Privacy Protection:, Cal. Prac. Guide Civ. Pro. Before Trial Ch. 8C-5.) Here, Mr. Alvarez is a witness to the injuries alleged.

The court notes LAUSD argues Plaintiff could conduct an investigation to locate Pablo Alvarez. LAUSD contends Plaintiff has presented no cogent argument and no evidence whatsoever to justify disclosure, in light of the less intrusive alternative of conducting an investigation to locate Mr. Alvarez. However, Plaintiff has shown the alternative is not feasible as Pablo Alverez is not an uncommon name and likely to be impossible to locate without more identifying information.

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel is GRANTED.