DOE, A MINOR, BY AND THROUGH HER GUARDIAN AD LITEM, MARY DOE, vs ELK GROVE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, A PUBLIC ENTITY, et al.

Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf. Parties may contact Court-Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-13.Pdf

A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.

Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will be forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

TENTATIVE RULING

***NOTICE: EFFECTIVE APRIL 13, 2026, THIS DEPARTMENT HAS MOVED TO THE TANI G. CANTIL-SAKAUYE COURTHOUSE LOCATED AT 500 G. ST. SACRAMENTO, CA. ALL MOTIONS NOTICED FOR DEPARTMENT 28 WILL BE HEARD IN DEPARTMENT 8C OF THE NEW COURTHOUSE. ALL PAPERS FOR THIS DEPARTMENT MUST BE FILED AT THIS NEW LOCATION AND WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED AT THE HALL OF JUSTICE. ALL HEARINGS WILL TAKE PLACE AT THIS NEW LOCATION****

Plaintiff Jane Doe, a minor, by and through her guardian ad litem, Mary Doe’s (“Plaintiff”) motion to compel further responses and production from Defendant Elk Grove Unified School District (“Defendant”) to request for production of documents, set one, nos. 1-8, 13, 16 -21, 28, 42, and 45-48 is ruled upon as follows.

On September 26, 2025, Plaintiff served her first set of Requests for Production on Defendant. (Gures Decl., ¶ 2.)

Defendant responded, but Plaintiff asserts that the responses were deficient. Plaintiff attempted

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV008859: DOE, A MINOR, BY AND THROUGH HER GUARDIAN AD LITEM, MARY DOE, vs ELK GROVE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, A PUBLIC ENTITY, et al. 07/06/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses and Production to Documents, Set One in Department 8C

to meet and confer with Defendant regarding these asserted deficiencies. Plaintiff asserts that Defendant did not respond to Plaintiff’s meet and confer attempts. (Gures Decl., ¶ 5.) Defendant asserts that they responded, addressing the concerns raised and provided additional documents, but that Plaintiff’s failed to meet and confer in good faith and instead filed the instant motion. (Kuklo Decl., ¶ 5, Exh. 4.)

Plaintiff now brings a motion to compel Defendant to provide further responses and production to Plaintiff’s request for production of documents, set one, nos. (1) David Martinez’s (“Martinez”) personnel file and related employment records; (2) documents concerning Martinez’s disciplinary history and investigations into his misconduct; (3) documents identifying percipient witnesses, (4) any “site file,” or “informal,” “confidential,” of “blind” personnel files, (5-8) any documents concerning any complaints made against Martinez, (13) any photographs of Martinez, (16), any statements given by Martinez, (17-18) any documents relating to the investigation of Martinez, (19) any performance reviews of Martinez, (20-21) any complaint made against Martinez by any student and/or parent, (28) any student-teacher evaluations, (42) any writings relating to the District’s “code of conduct,” (48) any communication between Martinez and the District in response to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of Documents.

Defendant opposes the motion, arguing that it produced over 1,400 documents and properly asserted objections the requests sought information protected by the privacy rights of nonparty students and other privileged or protected materials. (Opposition, 1:26-28.) Defendant also argues that Plaintiff failed to meet and confer in good faith and that Plaintiff’s separate statement fails to comply with California Rule of Court, Rule 3.1345 by failing to provide a factual and legal basis that is specific to each request.

On reply, Plaintiff argues that the presence of minor student information does not justify wholesale nondisclosure of documents. Plaintiff argues that Defendant may redact student names, identifying information, medical information, and unrelated educational details, then produce the responsive remainder, and states that Plaintiff has also agreed to deidentification and an appropriate protective order. Plaintiff argues that those safeguards preserve student privacy without concealing complaints, witness statements, investigative findings, and Defendant’s response to Martinez’s conduct.

Plaintiff further argues that Defendant’s privilege log is inadequate because it collapses 174 consecutive withheld pages into a single entry and fails to identify the constituent documents, their dates, authors, recipients, subject matters, or the protection asserted as to each. Section 2031.240 requires sufficient factual information to evaluate the claimed basis for withholding.

While the Court is inclined to agree that Defendant’s responses, privilege log, and broad nondisclosure is inadequate, the Court also concludes that Plaintiff’s meet and confer efforts were inadequate.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV008859: DOE, A MINOR, BY AND THROUGH HER GUARDIAN AD LITEM, MARY DOE, vs ELK GROVE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, A PUBLIC ENTITY, et al. 07/06/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses and Production to Documents, Set One in Department 8C

Furthermore, as of January 1, 2026, the Civil Discovery Act requires parties to declare a reasonable and good faith attempt to meet and confer “either in person, by telephone, or by videoconference.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2016.040, subd. (a).) An exchange of letters or emails is no longer sufficient, to the extent it ever was. While Plaintiff’s counsel claims to have left a voicemail for defense counsel the day before filing the motion, defense counsel asserts that he has no record of a missed call or voicemail from Plaintiff’s counsel on that date. (Kuklo Decl., ¶ 7.)

The Court reminds counsel that given the number of motions such as this which must be addressed on a daily basis, there are simply not sufficient judicial resources available to resolve each and every discovery dispute that could have and should have been resolved between the parties. This serves to highlight the critical need for all counsels’ legitimate, reasonable and good faith meet-and-confer efforts before filing any discovery motion. Although it dealt with a motion to compel answers to deposition questions, Townsend v. Superior Court (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1431 is instructive in that it clarifies that the meet-and-confer process is not intended to be some perfunctory formality but rather “requires a serious effort at negotiation and informal resolution.” (Id. at p. 1483.)

Accordingly, in compliance with statute and to encourage meaningful dialogue, counsel shall meet and confer in person or via telephone or videoconference no later than August 5, 2026. After thoroughly meeting and conferring in an attempt to resolve each and every discovery dispute that the motion currently encompasses, and no later than August 12, 2026, counsel shall file a joint statement indicating clearly which discovery requests have been resolved and which, if any, requests remain outstanding. For each outstanding request, counsel shall set forth concisely in their joint statement their respective positions, citing relevant facts and authorities. Boilerplate or cut-and-paste arguments are strongly discouraged. In the case that all the discovery disputes related to this motion are resolved, moving counsel shall promptly inform the court clerk to vacate the hearing.

This matter is continued to August 19, 2026 at 1:30 pm in Department 8C.

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc. §1019.5; CRC Rule 3.1312.)