H.G. vs. Tustin Unified School District

7. Has Plaintiff separately settled his individual claims? If so, please provide a copy of the settlement agreement. The Court requires this information to evaluate the fairness of the PAGA settlement.

8. Does notice need to be given in any languages other than English?

4 Yang vs. Brandrep, LLC

2024-01415295

Plaintiff’s Motion to Enforce Settlement

There is no tentative ruling on Plaintiff Jenny Yang’s motion to enforce the parties’ settlement agreement. Among other things, the Court does not understand the need for an order to enforce a settlement that already is the subject of a judgement. (ROA 101, entered on April 2, 2026) Presumably, Plaintiff will be able to execute on the judgment if all payments are not made by the final funding date. At the hearing, the parties should be prepared to discuss the state of Defendant BrandRep, LLC’s finances, including (1) the likelihood of Defendant fully funding the settlement in time for the planned August 2026 distribution to class members and (2) the likelihood that Defendant will file for bankruptcy.

6 H.G. vs. Tustin Unified School District

2023-01365548

Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash Discovery Subpoena

Plaintiffs Jane Doe H.G. and Jane Doe K.G. move to quash or modify several subpoenas issued by defendant Tustin Unified School District (TUSD). The motion is GRANTED IN PART. The subpoenas will be modified as set forth below. Plaintiffs’ request for sanctions is DENIED.

GROUNDS FOR RULING

I. Brief Background

This is one of several related cases involving Siu Kong Sit, a former TUSD teacher who placed recording cameras in locker rooms and restrooms at Beckman High School to capture images of minors undressing. After the cameras were discovered by a TUSD employee in February 2023, Sit pleaded guilty to federal child pornography charges. He is now imprisoned.

In addition to their claims against Sit, Plaintiffs bring claims against TUSD that sound primarily in negligent supervision. As to damages, Plaintiffs claim to have suffered “damages in the form of severe emotional distress and injury in mind and body including, but not limited to, emotional and psychological injuries including discomfort at school, heightened sensitivity, nightmares, humiliation, mental anguish, anxiety, and difficulty trusting others, a lifetime of fear of having their nude bodies disseminated throughout the internet, and special damages in the form of past, present, and future medical and psychological care expenses, loss of earnings and future earning capacity, consequential and incidental expenses incurred, and all additional economic losses and other damages in an amount to be proven at trial.” (Second Amended Complaint (SAC) (ROA 67) ¶ 39.)

Later in the SAC, Plaintiffs characterize their damages as “including, but not limited to, mental anguish, sleeplessness, crying spells, humiliation, fear of dissemination of their exposed bodies, emotional outbursts, depression, nightmares, decrease in academic performance, and exhaustion.” (Id. ¶ 61.) As a result, “Plaintiffs have incurred and will incur future medical/psychological and other related expenses” and “have sustained special and general damages in an amount according to proof.” (Id. ¶ 62.)

II. Meet and Confer

TUSD argues that Plaintiffs failed sufficiently to meet and confer before filing this motion, and the motion should be denied on that basis. The Court agrees that Plaintiffs’ meet and confer efforts were insufficient. Despite receiving the subpoenas on May 27, 2026 (Baldermann Decl. (ROA 153) ¶ 3), Plaintiffs didn’t even attempt to meet and confer until nearly the close of business on June 11, the day before the filing deadline. (Parker Decl. (included in ROA 159) Ex. A.) This was not an attempt to meet and confer in good faith. Importantly, it appears a good faith meet and confer could have obviated much of the need for this motion, as the reply papers narrow Plaintiffs’ requested relief.

Nevertheless, as Plaintiffs correctly point out in reply, CCP § 1987.1 contains no meet and confer requirement even though it is the preferred (if not generally required) practice for all discovery disputes. As a result, Plaintiffs’ failure to meet and confer in good faith is not grounds for denying the motion.

III. Merits of Motion

Based on the opposition and reply papers, the Court understands that (1) the parties agree the relevant time period for Plaintiffs’ pediatric records is 2019 to the present, and (2) Plaintiffs have withdrawn their motion insofar as it seeks relief for disclosure of their full names to the subpoena recipients. (In any event, Plaintiffs’ names would have to be disclosed to the subpoena recipients to search for responsive records; the recipients can hardly search for pseudonyms.) What remains at issue is the scope of the search.

A. Both Plaintiffs: Pediatric Records

Four of the subpoenas at issue seek Plaintiffs’ pediatric records from Seaview Pediatrics’ Irvine and Aliso Viejo offices. (TUSD served one subpoena per plaintiff per office.) Each subpoena identically seeks the following:

Any and all charts, including ALL handwritten forms, notes, reports, electronic and paper, soapnotes, inpatient and out patient records, patient in-take forms, patient histories/questionnaires, handwritten and electronic, records of appointments, examinations, color photos, laboratory tests, emergency room records, inpatient and outpatient records, histories, diagnosis, physical therapy, doctors notes, exam sheets, narrative reports, pharmacy records. S [sic], memoranda, correspondence, films/images that may be stored digitally/electronically, MRI’s, CT’s, any reports to or from any outside entity, including but not limited to any and all medical billing and itemized statements, bills showing current balance, adjustments made to account, PAYMENTS MADE TO ACCOUNT and BY WHO, writeoffs, compromises, reductions, including all insurance companies, Medi-Cal, Medicare, and amounts written off with regards to: [Plaintiff].

Again, the parties agree that only records from 2019 to the present need be produced, so the Court modifies the scope of the subpoenas accordingly.

As to the categories of records to be produced, Plaintiffs contend that by filing suit, they put at issue only the conditions in controversy, not their entire medical histories, and Seaview Pediatrics’ production must be tailored accordingly. They accordingly ask that the subpoenas be limited to “anxiety, depression, sleep difficulty, stress, and related complaints — and

any treatment therefor; excluding billing, insurance, and payment records.” (Reply (ROA 163) at p. 2.)

Plaintiffs ignore the breadth of injuries alleged in the SAC. As noted above, Plaintiffs claimed “injury in mind and body including, but not limited to” anxiety, depression, sleep difficulty, stress, and related complaints. (SAC ¶ 39 (emphasis added).) The alleged injuries aren’t limited to the conditions Plaintiffs cite in their reply. Unless they are willing to disclaim all other injuries, the subpoenas appear properly drawn to cover mental and physical conditions that include, but are not limited to, anxiety, depression, and the like.

Plaintiffs also ignore the breadth of damages alleged in the SAC. They seek past, present and future medical expenses. Billing, insurance, and payment records are clearly relevant to this claimed area of damages.

Accordingly, the subpoenas are modified to cover the time period from 2019 to the present. They are otherwise enforceable as drafted.

B. H.G.: Orange Coast College Records

H.G. attends (or attended) Orange Coast College in Costa Mesa. TUSD’s subpoena to OCC seeks the following:

Any and all records, files and correspondence, including scholastic grades and achievements, courses/classes attempted, courses/classes completed, attendance records, disciplinary actions, counseling records, opinions or progress, records relating to extracurricular activities and medical records regarding: [H.G.].

In reply, Plaintiffs ask that the subpoena be modified to provide for “certified academic transcript and enrollment and attendance records; not counseling, medical, or disciplinary records, as to which the District has made no showing of direct relevance.” (Reply at p. 2.) The Court agrees that transcripts, enrollment records, and attendance records should be produced. These are unquestionably relevant to H.G.’s claimed decrease in academic performance.

The Court disagrees that counseling and medical records are irrelevant. Again, H.G. claims broad mental and physical injuries. Her counseling and medical records (to the extent any exist with OCC) appear directly relevant to her claimed injuries.

However, the Court agrees that disciplinary records do not appear relevant at this time. H.G. does not claim, for example, to have suffered disciplinary consequences downstream of her claimed mental injuries. Absent a showing of relevance, there is no reason why disciplinary records should be produced.

Accordingly, the subpoena is modified to exclude disciplinary records. It is otherwise enforceable as drafted.

C. H.G.: Woollett Aquatic Center Records

H.G. works (or worked) at Woollett Aquatic Center in Irvine. TUSD’s subpoena to the Center seeks the following:

All employment records, including but not limited to, payroll records, W2’s and/or W9’s and 1099’s, all records reflecting the individual’s wages and date(s) of employment, the complete personnel file, applications, counseling reports, attendance records, performance evaluations, notes, correspondence, claims of any kind, including but not limited to, Workers Compensation, any accident or injury, work related or not, and insurance information and medical records/files regarding: [H.G.].

In reply, Plaintiffs ask that the subpoena be modified to provide for “wage, payroll, and hours records; not tax records or the complete personnel file.” (Reply at p. 2.) To the extent “tax records” means W-2s, W-9s, or 1099s, the Court disagrees with Plaintiffs. If Plaintiffs are willing to permit production of H.G.’s wage and/or payroll records, the Court sees no reason why production of W-2s, W-9s, or 1099s would be improper. However, H.G.’s social security number should be redacted from any production.

The Court also disagrees with Plaintiffs to the extent they believe records relating to claims of accidents or injuries in the Center’s files shouldn’t be produced. Again, H.G. has placed her mental and physical health at issue in broad terms, and TUSD is entitled to discovery bearing on her claimed injuries.

The Court agrees, however, that the subpoena is otherwise overbroad as drafted. There appears to be no reason why essentially every document related to H.G.’s employment, from her job application to her complete personnel file, is particularly relevant.

Accordingly, the subpoena is modified to provide for the production of wage, payroll, and hours records; forms W-2, W-9, and 1099 (with social security numbers redacted); and records relating to claims of H.G.’s accidents or injuries in the Center’s files.

IV. Fees and Costs

In reply, Plaintiffs abandon their initial request for fees and costs incurred in bringing this motion. The request is therefore denied.

9 Dang vs. Allegis Group, Inc.

2017-00903358

Defendant’s Motion to Strike Portions of Complaint

Continued to 03/19/2027 at 9:00 a.m. per stipulation of the parties.

10 Pelayo vs. Andek Staffing Services, Inc.

2025-01524878

Defendant’s Motion to Compel Arbitration Defendant’s Vensure HR, Inc.’s Joinder Defendant’s Westamerica Communication, Inc.’s Joinder

Before the Court are Defendants AnDek Staffing Services, Inc. and AnDek After Venture’s (collectively, “AnDek”) motion to compel arbitration (ROA 32), Defendant Westamerica Communications, Inc.’s joinder in AnDek’s motion (ROA 37), and Defendant Vensure HR, Inc.’s joinder in AnDek’s motion (ROA 42). AnDek’s motion, and the two joinders, are DENIED.

GROUNDS FOR RULING

I. Standard of Review

The moving party bears the burden of proving the existence of an arbitration agreement by the preponderance of the evidence. (Gamboa v. Northeast Community Clinic (2021) 72 Cal.App.5th 158, 164.) But the burden of production shifts in a three-step