This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 08/13/2020 at 00:53:16 (UTC).

MIGUEL URRUTIA VS PASADENA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT ET AL

Case Summary

On 04/27/2018 MIGUEL URRUTIA filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against PASADENA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is STEPHEN I. GOORVITCH. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****4012

  • Filing Date:

    04/27/2018

  • 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 Judge

STEPHEN I. GOORVITCH

 

Party Details

Plaintiff, Guardian Ad Litem and Not Classified By Court

BARRAZA MARIA

Defendants and Respondents

KELLY LANISHA

DOES 1-50

PASADENA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

MAKIYAMA STAN

FEDERICO JOSEPH

Minors and Not Classified By Court

URRUTIA MIGUEL

BARRAZA MARIA

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Defendant, Respondent and Plaintiff Attorneys

DOUMANIAN NANCY P. ESQ.

MCELROY STEPHEN KELLY ESQ.

MCELROY STEPHEN KELLY

DOUMANIAN NANCY PRAPION

DOUMANIAN NANCY PRAPION ESQ.

Minor Attorney

MCELROY STEPHEN K. ESQ.

Other Attorneys

MCELROY STEPHEN K.

 

Court Documents

Stipulation and Order - STIPULATION AND ORDER STIPULATION AND PROTECTIVE ORDER REGARDING DISCOVERY CONCERNING STUDENT RECORDS

3/6/2020: Stipulation and Order - STIPULATION AND ORDER STIPULATION AND PROTECTIVE ORDER REGARDING DISCOVERY CONCERNING STUDENT RECORDS

Reply - REPLY TO PASADENA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICTS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES

2/3/2020: Reply - REPLY TO PASADENA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICTS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES

Reply - REPLY TO STAN MAKIYAMAS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES

2/3/2020: Reply - REPLY TO STAN MAKIYAMAS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES

Reply - REPLY TO LANISHA KELLYS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES

2/3/2020: Reply - REPLY TO LANISHA KELLYS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES

Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION [AMENDED] TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND FSC GIVEN NEW AND PREVIOUSLY UNDISCLOSED INFORMATION REGARDING PLAINTIFF'S CONDITION AND INJURY AND PENDING DISCOVERY MOTION

1/31/2020: Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION [AMENDED] TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND FSC GIVEN NEW AND PREVIOUSLY UNDISCLOSED INFORMATION REGARDING PLAINTIFF'S CONDITION AND INJURY AND PENDING DISCOVERY MOTION

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND FSC GIV...)

1/31/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND FSC GIV...)

Opposition - OPPOSITION DEFENDANT PASADENA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICTS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) AND

1/24/2020: Opposition - OPPOSITION DEFENDANT PASADENA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICTS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) AND

Opposition - OPPOSITION STAN MAKIYAMAS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) AND REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS (SET

1/27/2020: Opposition - OPPOSITION STAN MAKIYAMAS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) AND REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS (SET

Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses

1/3/2020: Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses

Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses

1/3/2020: Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses

Notice of Ruling

9/9/2019: Notice of Ruling

Opposition - Opposition MOTION /OPPOSITION/STIPULATION TO TRANSFER PERSONAL INJURY CASE TO INDEPENDENT CALENDAR COURT AND ORDER

3/8/2019: Opposition - Opposition MOTION /OPPOSITION/STIPULATION TO TRANSFER PERSONAL INJURY CASE TO INDEPENDENT CALENDAR COURT AND ORDER

Answer - PASADENA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT; LANISHA KELLY; STAN MAKIYAMA; JOSEPH FEDERICO

9/18/2018: Answer - PASADENA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT; LANISHA KELLY; STAN MAKIYAMA; JOSEPH FEDERICO

CIVIL DEPOSIT -

9/19/2018: CIVIL DEPOSIT -

PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

8/7/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS -

8/9/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS -

APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM-CIVIL EX PARTE

6/22/2018: APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM-CIVIL EX PARTE

SUMMONS -

6/22/2018: SUMMONS -

40 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 09/28/2021
  • Hearing09/28/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department 32 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/16/2021
  • Hearing09/16/2021 at 10:00 AM in Department 32 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Final Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/11/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 32, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Trial Setting Conference - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/11/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Trial Setting Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/30/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 32, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/15/2020
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 32, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/06/2020
  • Docketat 10:30 AM in Department 5; Informal Discovery Conference (IDC) - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/24/2020
  • Docketat 4:19 PM in Department 32, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Court Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/24/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Court Order Vacating the 04/15/2020 Final Status Conference a...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/24/2020
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for ((Court Order Vacating the 04/15/2020 Final Status Conference a...) of 03/24/2020); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
71 More Docket Entries
  • 08/07/2018
  • DocketProof of Service by Substituted Service; Filed by Maria Barraza (Plaintiff); Miguel Urrutia (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/06/2018
  • DocketProof of Personal Service; Filed by Miguel Urrutia (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/06/2018
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/22/2018
  • DocketSummons; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/22/2018
  • DocketSummons Issued; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/22/2018
  • DocketAPPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM-CIVIL EX PARTE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/22/2018
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/04/2018
  • DocketApplication ; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/27/2018
  • DocketCOMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/27/2018
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by null

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC704012    Hearing Date: February 07, 2020    Dept: 32

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 32

MIGUEL URRUTIA,

Plaintiff,

v.

PASADENA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: BC704012

Hearing Date: February 7, 2020

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

Plaintiff’s Motions to compel further responses

Plaintiff Miguel Urrutia (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against the Pasadena Unified School District and several employees (“Defendants”) after he was assaulted by a fellow student. The Court rules as follows on Plaintiffs’ motions to compel further responses, but the Court’s ruling is contingent upon Plaintiff’s stipulation to a protective order to ensure that student information is not disclosed improperly:

I. Motion to Compel against Pasadena Unified School District

Form Interrogatory #16.1 – This interrogatory requests the identity and contact information of any person that Defendant believes contributed to the incident. The motion is granted. Defendant’s boilerplate objections to this interrogatory as being vague, ambiguous, lacking foundation, etc. are without merit. This interrogatory does not seek to invade attorney client privilege or attorney work product, and the case upon which Defendant relies—Nacht & Lewis Arch. v. Superior Court (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 214—is not controlling. That case addressed Form Interrogatories Numbers 12.1, 12.2, and 12.3, all of which expressly called for privileged information. Number 12.1 requires disclosure of statements of witnesses (who often are interviewed by counsel or counsel’s investigators). Number 12.2 calls for the identities of witnesses interviewed, e.g., by counsel or counsel’s investigators. Number 12.3 calls for written or recorded statements from individuals, e.g., by counsel or counsel’s investigators. By contrast, Number 16.1 simply calls for the identity of those who might bear responsibility for the incident. Finally, the Court overrules Defendant’s objection under Education Code section 49076. This section permits disclosure based upon a judicial order, though it is incumbent upon Defendant to provide any required notice. In this case, the Court has balanced the relevance and need for the information against the potential privacy concerns. Plaintiff is entitled to this information because he is entitled to know whether Defendant intends to raise a defense at trial that another party is responsible and conduct discovery on that issue.

Request for Admission #39 – This request calls for Defendant to admit or deny whether G.G. punched Plaintiff in April 2017. The motion is granted. The request is not vague or ambiguous, as it seeks information about a specific incident. The Court overrules Defendant’s objection under Education Code section 49076. This information is relevant because it shows a pattern of violent behavior, which may have placed Defendant on notice that G.G. was a danger to other students. The Court also finds that the relevance of this information outweighs the privacy considerations, especially since the request addresses a narrow and specific incident.

Request for Admission #40 – This request calls for Defendant to admit or deny that a substitute teacher did not appear on time on the date of the incident. The motion is granted. The Court overrules Defendant’s boilerplate objections. The Court also finds that Education Code section 49076 does not apply because it does not relate to student records.

Request for Admission #47 – This request calls for Defendant to admit or deny that G.G. “was having anger problems.” The motion is denied, as the Court sustains Defendant’s objection for vagueness.

Request for Admission #48 – This request calls for Defendant to admit or deny that G.G. “had been counseled by the Pasadena School Resource Officer after wrestling a female student.” The motion is granted. The request is not vague or ambiguous, as it seeks information about a specific incident. The Court overrules Defendant’s objection under Education Code section 49076. This information is relevant because it shows a pattern of violent behavior, which may have placed Defendant on notice that G.G. was a danger to other students. The Court also finds that the relevance of this information outweighs the privacy considerations, especially since the request addresses a narrow and specific incident.

Request for Admission #49 – This request calls for Defendant to admit or deny that G.G. “received 6 discipline notes during the 2016-2017 school year.” The motion is denied. The request is not vague or ambiguous, as it seeks information about specific incidents. However, the request is not specific to discipline notes about violent behavior or bullying of other students. Discipline notes concerning, for example, poor attendance are not relevant and do not outweigh the privacy considerations of Education Code section 49076.

Request for Admission #50 – This request calls for Defendant to admit or deny that G.G. “had been disciplined . . . for mouthing off.” The motion is denied, as the Court sustains Defendant’s objection for vagueness.

Request for Admission #51 – This request calls for Defendant to admit or deny that G.G. “had been disciplined for being [sic] throwing a bottle during lunch.” The motion is granted. The request is not vague or ambiguous, as it seeks information about a specific incident. The Court overrules Defendant’s objection under Education Code section 49076. This information is relevant because it shows a pattern of violent behavior, which may have placed Defendant on notice that G.G. was a danger to other students. The Court also finds that the relevance of this information outweighs the privacy considerations, especially since the request addresses a narrow and specific incident.

Request for Admission #52 – This request calls for Defendant to admit or deny that G.G. had been disciplined for “being out of class.” The motion is denied. The request is not vague or ambiguous, as it seeks information about specific incidents. However, the request is not specific to discipline notes about violent behavior or bullying of other students. Discipline notes concerning, for example, poor attendance are not relevant and do not outweigh the privacy considerations of Education Code section 49076.

Request for Admission #53 – This request calls for Defendant to admit or deny that G.G. “had low grades.” The motion is denied. The request is not vague or ambiguous, as it seeks information about specific incidents. However, the request is not specific to discipline notes about violent behavior or bullying of other students. Discipline notes concerning, for example, poor attendance are not relevant and do not outweigh the privacy considerations of Education Code section 49076.

Request for Admission #54 – This request calls for Defendant to admit or deny that G.G. “was seeking counseling for his issues.” The motion is denied, as the Court sustains Defendant’s objection for vagueness.

Request for Admission #55 – This request calls for Defendant to admit or deny that G.G. “had been contracted [sic] and counseled by the police.” The motion is denied. First, the Court sustains Defendant’s objection for vagueness. Second, the request is not specific violent behavior or bullying of other students. Being contacted and counseled by the police for truancy, for example, is not relevant and does not outweigh the privacy considerations of Education Code section 49076.

Special Interrogatories #1 and #2, and Requests for Production #12 and #13 – These discovery requests seek the identities of students in two different first period classes. The Court has no tentative ruling on this issue.

Request for Production #5 – This request seeks all communications between Defendant and G.G.’s parents during the 2016-2017 school year. The motion is denied. The request is not vague or ambiguous, as it seeks information about specific incidents. However, the request is not specific to communications about violent behavior or bullying of other students. Communications concerning, for example, poor attendance are not relevant and do not outweigh the privacy considerations of Education Code section 49076.

II. Motion to Compel against Stan Makiyama

The Court incorporates by reference its rulings on Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses from the Pasadena Unified School District.

III. Motion to Compel against Lanisha Kelly

The Court incorporates by reference its rulings on Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses from the Pasadena Unified School District.

IV. Motion to Compel against Joseph Federico

The Court incorporates by reference its rulings on Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses from the Pasadena Unified School District.

V. Sanctions

Plaintiff seeks sanctions in connection with these motions. The Court finds that this was a good-faith dispute. Moreover, Education Code section 49076 provides good cause for Defendants’ refusal to provide requested information. That section prohibits Defendants from complying with Plaintiff’s discovery requests in the absence of a Court order. Therefore, there is good cause not to impose sanctions.

VI. Conclusion and Order

The Court grants in part and denies in part Defendants’ motions to compel further responses. The Court orders Defendants to provide further responses, without objections, consistent with this order within twenty days of entry of a protective order. This order is conditioned in Plaintiff’s stipulation to a protective order to ensure that information from student records is not disclosed improperly. Defendants shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.

DATED: February 7, 2020 ___________________________

Stephen I. Goorvitch

Judge of the Superior Court