John Doe A. R. et al v. Brad Rowell et al

John Doe A. R. et al v. Brad Rowell et al 25CV001606

DEFENDANT NAPA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY BY PLAINTIFFS, JOE DOE A.R., JANE DOE J.M. AND JOHN DOE M.W., AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS

TENTATIVE RULING: The motion is GRANTED IN PART. The Motion is GRANTED as to Form Interrogatory Nos. 6.3-6.7, 8.2-8.8, and 17.1, Special Interrogatory Nos. 9-13, 46-48, 50, 58-61, and 64-67, and Requests for Production of Documents Nos. 1-37. Plaintiffs John Doe A.R, Jane Doe J.M. and John Doe M.W. are each ordered to serve amended code-compliant responses to the foregoing discovery and produce all nonprivileged, responsive documents no later than 10 calendar days from Notice of Entry of the present ruling. The Motion

is DENIED as to Form Interrogatory No. 6.8 and Special Interrogatory Nos. 8, 15, 20, 27, 29, 30, 34, 39, 41, 55, 57, 62, 63, 68, and 70.

Plaintiffs’ counsel is further ordered to pay to Defendant Napa Valley Unified School District, care of its attorney of record, within 10 calendar days of notice of entry of this order, sanctions in the amount of $ 2,937.50. Defendant Napa Valley Unified School District is directed to provide Notice of Entry of Order.

The moving party failed to include in the notice of this motion proper notice of the Court’s tentative ruling system as required by Local Rule 2.9. Moving party is directed to immediately provide, by telephone call AND email, the missing notice to opposing party/ies forthwith. The requirements for requesting oral argument under Local Rule 2.9 remain in effect. However, the Court may grant belated requests for oral argument or continuance of hearing, made by any party who represents it did not timely receive the required notice, regardless of whether or not moving party is present at the hearing.

A. PROCEDURAL MATTER

Defendant Napa Valley Unified School District (the “District” or “Defendant”) moves, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 2023.010, 2023.030, 2023.040, 2030.300, 2031.300 and Rule of Court rule 3.1348,3 for an order compelling each of the Plaintiffs to provide further responses to the following discovery requests: Form Interrogatories, Set One, Nos. 6.3-6.8, 8.2- 8.8 and 17.1, Special Interrogatories, Set One, Nos. 8-13, 15, 20, 27, 29, 30, 34, 39, 41, 46-48, 50, 55, 57-68 and 70, Request for Production of Documents, Set One, Nos. 1-37, and for the production of any responsive documents (collectively the “Subject Discovery.”) The District further moves for an order that counsel of record for the Plaintiffs pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $2,937.50 representing the reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred by the District in preparing, filing and arguing (if necessary) this motion.

B. LEGAL STANDARD

On receipt of a response to interrogatories, requests for admission, or document requests, the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the propounding party deems that an answer is evasive or incomplete or an objection is without merit or too general. (§§ 2030.300, subd. (a), 2031.310, subd. (a), 2033.290, subd. (a).) “Each answer in a response to interrogatories shall be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits.” (§ 2030.220, subd. (a).)

Each answer to a request for admission “shall answer the substance of the requested admission, or set forth an objection to the particular request.” (§ 2033.210, subd. (b).) Each answer to a document request shall either (1) state that the party will comply with the particular demand by the date set for the inspection, (2) represent that the party lacks the ability to comply with the demand for inspection, or (3) object to the particular demand. (§ 2031.210, subd. (a).)

If a timely motion to compel has been filed, the burden is on the responding party to justify any failure fully to answer the interrogatories and requests for admission. (Coy v. Superior 3 All subsequent statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure unless otherwise specified.

Court (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220-21; Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255.) A party moving to compel responses to production of documents must “set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand.” (§ 2031.310, subd. (b)(1).) Once good cause is shown, the burden shifts to the party opposing the motion to justify its objection(s). (Kirkland v. Superior Court (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 92, 98.)

C. DISCUSSION

Here, the District argues that each of the three Plaintiffs’ responses, which are virtually identical, fail to provide full and complete responses as required by the Discovery Act.

Plaintiffs oppose the Motion, arguing they “have responded in good faith, after a reasonable inquiry, and based on the information reasonably available to them. (Ullfig Decl., ¶¶ 3, 14.) Where information is not yet known, where documents are not in Plaintiffs' possession, or where facts depend on materials still in the process of being obtained through discovery, Plaintiffs have said so. (Ullfig Decl., ¶¶ 9-10.) That is not a failure of compliance. It is precisely what the discovery statutes contemplate.” (Opposition 2:14-18.)

1. Form Interrogatories, Set One, Nos. 6.3-6.74, 8.2-8.8 and 17.1

When responding to interrogatories, the answer to each interrogatory must be “as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits.” (§ 2030.220(a); Collin v. CalPortland Co. (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 582, 590.) A party must make “a reasonable and good-faith effort to obtain the information” necessary to respond full to an interrogatory. (§ 2030.220, subd. (c); Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 406.) When a motion to compel is timely, it is the responding party’s burden to justify a failure to fully answer an interrogatory.

Form Interrogatories Nos. 6.3-6.7 (Physical/Psychological Injuries)

In response to Form Interrogatories Nos. 6.3-6.7, each of the three Plaintiffs provided exactly the same response, substantively: “Responding Party responds as follows: Mental, emotional, and physical injuries, including depression, anxiety, PTSD, and related physical manifestations.” Each Plaintiff avers that his/her “investigation and discovery are ongoing. These responses are based upon information presently known and reasonably available after a reasonable inquiry.” Therefore, despite propounding a combined 15 separate interrogatories on the three Plaintiffs, Defendant received just one response.

The Court finds the responses to Form Interrogatories Nos. 6.3-6.7 woefully inadequate. Clearly, the Plaintiffs have copied and pasted the exact same response, each contending they have exactly the same damages as a result of the alleged wrongful conduct. Moreover, despite the fact Plaintiffs alleged they were sexually abused by defendant Rowell between 2015 and 2018 (see Complaint ¶¶ 27-28, 33-37 and 5(sic)-7(sic)), today, none of the Plaintiffs are able to state: (1) whether the complaints they attribute to the incident are the same, worse or subsiding or how often they occur (No. 6.3); (2) whether they sought treatment from a health care provider 4 Defendant’s Notice includes Form Interrogatory 6.8, but no such Form Interrogatory exists.

due to or took medication as a result of their injuries (Nos. 6.4 and 6.5); (3) if they have required any other medical services as a result of their injuries (No. 6.6); or (4) if they have been advised of the need for future treatment (No. 6.7). It seems to the Court no amount of investigation is going to reveal the answers to these questions as the questions are directed at Plaintiffs’ injuries. If Plaintiffs are unable to remember everything necessary to respond to these interrogatories, they have a duty to make “a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information” prior to responding.

Plaintiffs are ordered to amend their responses to each of these interrogatories with full and complete responses as required by the Discovery Act.

Form Interrogatories Nos. 8.2-8.8 (Lost Income)

Just like the responses to Form Interrogatories Nos. 6.3-6.7, once again, each of the three Plaintiffs provided the same responses to these five interrogatories. Substantively, the response was: “Plaintiff’s mental health conditions have negatively affected his ability to work and earning capacity.” Each Plaintiff alleged that his/her “investigation and discovery are ongoing. These responses are based upon information presently known and reasonably available after a reasonable inquiry.” Despite propounding five separate interrogatories on three Plaintiffs, Defendants received just one boilerplate response.

Plaintiffs’ responses evince a disregard of their obligations under the Discovery Act. For example, Form Interrogatory No. 8.2 asks each Plaintiff to state “(a) the nature of your work; (b) your job title at the time of the INCIDENT; and (c) the date your employment began.” Plaintiff responded: “Plaintiff’s mental health conditions have negatively affected his ability to work and earning capacity.” This does not answer the interrogatory. Moreover, it is difficult for the Court to imagine what “investigation and discovery” would be needed to answer this question. If Plaintiffs are unable to remember everything necessary to respond to these interrogatories, they have a duty to make “a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information” prior to responding.

Plaintiffs are ordered to amend their responses to each of these interrogatories with full and complete responses as required by the Discovery Act.

Form Interrogatory No. 17.1 (Facts in Support of Denials of Request for Admissions)

Defendants propounded 27 Requests for Admissions on each Plaintiff. (Declaration of Bruce D. MacLeod (MacLeod Decl.) Exs. G, I, K.) Each Plaintiff denied all 27 RFAs. (MacLeod Decl. Exs. H, J, L.)

Form Interrogatory No. 17.1 asks:

Is your response to each request for admission served with these interrogatories an unqualified admission? If not, for each response that is not an unqualified admission:

(a) state the number of the request;

(b) state all facts on which you base your response;

(c) state the names, ADDRESSES, and telephone numbers of all PERSONS who have knowledge of those facts; and

(d) identify all DOCUMENTS and other tangible things that support your response and state the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON who has each DOCUMENT or thing.

All three Plaintiffs provided a verbatim response:

Responding Party objects on the grounds that this interrogatory seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege and attorney work product doctrine pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §2018.030.

Without waiving said objections, Responding Party responds as follows: None at this time.

Responding Party's investigation and discovery are ongoing. These responses are based upon information presently known and reasonably available after a reasonable inquiry. Responding Party expressly reserves the right to amend, supplement, correct, or modify these responses pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §2030.310 and other applicable law as additional facts, documents, or information become available. No waiver of objections, privileges, protections, or immunities is intended or shall be implied.

Again, it is readily apparent to the Court that Plaintiffs made no effort whatsoever to respond to Form Interrogatory No. 17.1.

While the Court acknowledges that Plaintiffs may not currently possess all of the facts in support of their denial of all 27 RFAs, it is inconceivable that they are unable to provide any substantive responses to Form Interrogatory No. 17.1.

For example, Request for Admission No. 6 states: “Admit that prior to April of 2024, you were not aware of Rowell behaving inappropriately toward any Student.” Plaintiffs denied this request and all three stated “None at this time.” No amount of investigation or discovery is going to assist Plaintiffs in responding to an RFA that asks them to admit or deny what they knew as of April 2024.

Plaintiffs are ordered to provide further responses to Form Interrogatory No. 17.1. At a minimum, they must set forth each RFA that they denied (as required by No. 17.1(a)) and all

facts/witnesses/documents known to them, after reasonable inquiry, in support of those denials. It bears mentioning that Section 2033.220 allows a party to neither admit nor deny a RFA due to lack of information or knowledge; rather, a party that claims lack of sufficient information or knowledge in response to a RFA is, in effect, a sworn statement of inability to admit or deny. Plaintiffs did not respond with an inability to admit or deny, nor were their denials qualified upon a lack of sufficient information or knowledge; instead, they responded “denied.” Defendants are entitled to understand the basis of Plaintiffs’ denials.

Conclusion

The Motion is DENIED as to Form Interrogatory No. 6.8 and is GRANTED as to Form Interrogatory Nos. 6.3-6.7, 8.2-8.8, and 17.1.

2. Special Interrogatories, Set One, Nos. 8-13, 15, 20, 27, 29, 30, 34, 39, 41, 46-48, 50, 55, 57-68 and 70.

When responding to interrogatories, the answer to each interrogatory must be “as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits.” (§ 2030.220(a); Collin, supra, 228 Cal.App.4th at 590.) A party must make “a reasonable and good-faith effort to obtain the information” necessary to respond full to an interrogatory. (§ 2030.220, subd. (c); Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc., supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at 406.) When a motion to compel is timely, it is the responding party’s burden to justify a failure to fully answer an interrogatory.

Here, as to the Special Interrogatories at issue, all three Plaintiffs have provided exactly the same responses.

Special Interrogatories No. 8, 15, 20, 27, 29, 30, 34, 39, 41, 55, 57, 62, 63, 68, 70.

Although the responses to these interrogatories lean toward the vague and responsive, the Court finds them sufficient and therefore denies the Motion as to them.

Special Interrogatories No. 9-13.

Special Interrogatory No. 9 states: “Do you contend that any individual complained to the District about Rowell in any manner prior to April 19, 2024?”

Since this asks for each Plaintiffs’ contention as of the date the response is given, Plaintiffs should be able to answer “yes” or “no.” By answering “Plaintiff presently lacks sufficient information to provide a further response within the meaning of Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.220(c),” Plaintiff, and each of them, has failed to provide a complete and straightforward response. There is no discovery or investigation that can be done to determine whether the Plaintiffs, today, have a particular contention.

Plaintiffs are ordered to provide an amended response to Special Interrogatory No. 9 that states, “yes,” “no” or, potentially, “not at this time.”

Plaintiffs must then amend their answers to Special Interrogatories No. 10-13 as they each flow from No.

9.

Special Interrogatories 46, 47, 48, 50.

Special Interrogatory No. 46 states: “Do you contend that any District employee actually knew (prior to April 9, 2024) of Rowell engaging in sexual relations with you or any other student?”

Since this interrogatory asks for each Plaintiffs’ contention as of the date the response is given, Plaintiffs should be able to answer “yes” or “no.” By answering “Plaintiff presently lacks sufficient information to provide a further response within the meaning of Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.220(c),” Plaintiff, and each of them, has failed to provide a complete and straightforward response. There is no discovery or investigation that can be done to determine whether the Plaintiffs, today, have a particular contention.

Plaintiffs are ordered to provide an amended response to Special Interrogatory No. 46 that states, “yes,” “no” or, potentially, “not at this time.”

Plaintiffs must then amend their answers to Special Interrogatories Nos. 47, 48 and 50 as they each flow from No.

46.

Special Interrogatories 58, 60, 61

These interrogatories ask about Plaintiffs’ psychological injuries. Like Plaintiffs’ responses to Form Interrogatories Nos. 6.3-6.7, the Court finds Plaintiffs’ answers inadequate. Plaintiffs must answer these interrogatories in a straightforward and complete manner. They must provide whatever information they know today, after reasonable inquiry.

Special Interrogatories No. 64-67.

Special Interrogatory No. 64 asks: “Other than your attorneys, have you disclosed Rowell's alleged sexual abuse toward you to anyone?” This is a straightforward question calling for a “yes” or “no” answer. Plaintiffs’ answer “Plaintiff states that, after reasonable inquiry, Plaintiff presently lacks sufficient information to fully respond and further objects on privacy grounds” is not well taken. Plaintiffs are ordered to provide a full and complete response to this interrogatory.

Plaintiffs must then amend their answers to Special Interrogatories Nos. 65-67 as they each flow from No.

64.

Conclusion

The Motion is DENIED as to Special Interrogatory Nos. 8, 15, 20, 27, 29, 30, 34, 39, 41, 55, 57, 62, 63, 68, and 70. The Motion is GRANTED as to Special Interrogatory Nos. 9-13, 46- 48, 50, 58-61, and 64-67.

3. Request for Production of Documents Nos. 1-37

A party moving to compel responses to production of documents must “set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand.” (§ 2031.310, subd. (b)(1).)] “[A]bsent a claim of privilege or attorney work product, the party who seeks to compel production has met his burden of showing good cause simply by a fact-specific showing of relevance.” (Kirkland, supra, 95 Cal.App.4th at 98.) “In the context of discovery, evidence is ‘relevant’ if it might reasonably assist a party in evaluating its case, preparing for trial, or facilitating a settlement.” (Glenfed Development Corp. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1117.) Once good cause is shown, the burden shifts to the party opposing the motion to justify its objection(s). (See Kirkland, supra, 95 Cal.App.4th at 98.)

The Court has reviewed the District’s Separate Statement and the Motion and finds the District has met its burden to justify the discovery sought by each demand.

Plaintiffs’ Opposition to the Motion does not focus on its objections to the document demands, but instead argues that the District’s Motion seeks to impose obligations on Plaintiffs that are not set forth the Civil Discovery Act. The Court disagrees.

The District propounded 37 separate requests for production of documents on each of the three Plaintiffs. None of the three Plaintiffs provided any responsive documents. Instead, after interposing objections, they each stated, 37 times:

Without waiving these objections, Plaintiff states that investigation and reasonable inquiry are ongoing and Plaintiff has not completed sufficient inquiry to determine whether responsive, non-privileged documents exist. Accordingly, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §2031.230, Plaintiff presently lacks the ability to comply. Plaintiff reserves the right to amend or supplement this response if additional responsive, non-privileged documents are later identified.

Section 2031.230 requires a party who is unable to respond to a document demand to affirm: (1) “that a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry has been made in an effort to comply with that demand;” (2) “whether the inability to comply is because the particular item or category has never existed, has been destroyed, has been lost, misplaced, or stolen, or has never been, or is no longer, in the possession, custody, or control of the responding party;” and (3) “the name and address of any natural person or organization known or believed by that party to have possession, custody, or control of that item or category of item.”

Plaintiffs’ responses do not comply with Section 2031.230. As such, all of the responses must be amended to comply with the Discovery Act.

Furthermore, Plaintiffs are reminded that they have an affirmative obligation to conduct a “diligent search and a reasonable inquiry” when responding to document requests. Many of the requests seek documents that would either be in each Plaintiff’s possession, never have existed, or have been destroyed. For example, Request No. 25 asks for “Any and all handwritten or electronic notes YOU made regarding the allegations in the COMPLAINT.” Request No. 27 asks for “All correspondence, exchanged between YOU (or anyone acting on YOUR behalf) and any District Attorney Office regarding the subject incident(s).”

It is disingenuous for Plaintiffs to assert that they need to investigate matters further before they can respond to these (and similar) requests. As to many of the document requests, Plaintiffs should know today whether responsive documents exist or existed and must respond to this request. To the extent non-privileged documents exist, they must be produced.

Based on the foregoing, the Motion is GRANTED as to Requests for Production of Documents Nos. 1-37.

4. Sanctions

“The court shall impose a monetary sanction . . . against any party . . . who unsuccessfully . . . opposes a motion to compel a further response to [interrogatories or demands for production], unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (§§ 2033.290, subd. (d), 2030.300, subd. (d), 2031.310, subd. (h).)

The Court finds neither that Plaintiffs acted with substantial justification nor that other circumstances make imposition of sanctions unjust. The Court finds that the hourly rate charged by counsel is reasonable. (See MacLeod Decl. at ¶ 20.) The Court further finds that the approximately 15 hours spent is a reasonable number of billable hours for preparation of the motion. (Id. at 19.)

Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s request for sanctions as against Plaintiffs’ counsel is GRANTED. Plaintiffs’ counsel is ordered to pay to the District, care of its attorney of record, within 10 calendar days of notice of entry of this order, sanctions in the amount of $2,937.50 (the amount sought in the Motion itself).

Hector Zamora Ornelas v. D.R. Horton, Inc. 25CV002388

MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL

APPEARANCE REQUIRED: Counsel asserts that “Plaintiff is deceased . . . [and] . . . [k]nown family members have been made aware of the claim, but no heir or personal representative has been located or stepped forward.” (Notice of Motion at ¶ 3.) The effect of granting a motion to be relieved as counsel, in this context, would be to leave the action without

13