JOHN DOE 1, et al. vs LINAN

25CV023391: JOHN DOE 1, et al. vs LINAN 08/17/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Production of Documents in Department 8C

Tentative Ruling

NOTICE:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that any oral arguments regarding this tentative ruling will be heard at 1:30 p.m. in Department 8C in the Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye Courthouse at 500 G Street, Sacramento, CA, the Hon. Richard C. Miadich presiding.

Any party who wishes to contest the tentative ruling below must:

(1) request a hearing by calling the Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line for Department 8C at (916) 874-8380, by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the noticed hearing date, and leave a voicemail message (a) identifying themselves as the party requesting oral argument; (b) indicating the specific matter/motion for which they are requesting oral argument; and (c) confirming that they have notified the opposing party of their intention to appear; and

(2) advise the opposing party of the location and time of hearing pursuant to Local Rule 1.06.

If a hearing is not requested by 4:00 p.m. on the Court day before the noticed hearing date, the tentative ruling will become the final order of the Court.

If a hearing is requested, the Court prefers in-person attendance by the parties. However, parties may appear by Zoom unless the Court specifically orders in-person attendance. Parties choosing to appear by Zoom are reminded, however, that a Zoom appearance is still a formal appearance before the Court. Parties appearing via Zoom should do so from a quiet location, free from undue distractions, and wear attire suitable for an in-person court appearance.

The parties may join the Zoom session for hearing on the tentative ruling by audio and/or video through the following link:

https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16039062174

SIP Address:

16039062174@sip.zoomgov.com

(833) 568-8864

25CV023391: JOHN DOE 1, et al. vs LINAN 08/17/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Production of Documents in Department 8C

ID: 16039062174

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 STREET 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***

Plaintiffs John Doe 1 and John Doe 2’s (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) motion to compel Defendant San Juan Unified School District (“SJUSD”) to serve further responses to Plaintiffs’ Request for Production of Documents, Set One, is ruled upon as follows.

The notice of motion does not provide notice of the Court’s tentative ruling system, as required by Local Rule 1.06. Moving counsel is directed to contact opposing counsel and advise of Local Rule 1.06 and the Court’s tentative ruling procedure and the manner to request a hearing. If moving counsel is unable to contact opposing counsel prior to the hearing, moving counsel

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV023391: JOHN DOE 1, et al. vs LINAN 08/17/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Production of Documents in Department 8C

is ordered to appear at the hearing by Zoom or in person.

Background

This action arises from alleged child sex abuse committed by Defendant Ricky Linan (“Linan”) while he was employed by SJUSD as a substitute teacher. The Complaint alleges three causes of action: (1) negligence against SJUSD; (2) negligent hiring/retention against SJUSD; and (3) sexual battery against Linan. Plaintiffs allege that the abuse occurred while they were enrolled in SJUSD’s before and after school childcare program, Discovery Club, at Cambridge Heights Elementary School (“CHES”) while Linan was their teacher.

Plaintiffs allege that Linan abused them from the fall of 2023 until his arrest in January 2025 during the before and after school care class periods. Plaintiffs also allege that other students have accused Linan of sexual abuse at Discovery Club and that the other abuse took place from July through December, 2024. Plaintiffs thus allege that these other incidents of sexual abuse, as well as other factors, gave SJUSD notice of Linan’s abuse or his abusive tendencies such that they were negligent in hiring/retaining Linan and failing to protect students.

Plaintiffs categorize the requests at issue in this motion as follows:

 Linan’s personnel file (Request Nos. 10 and 14);  Documents related to prior complaints of sexual misconduct by Linan and SJUSD’s investigations into those complaints (Request Nos. 1, 2, 7, and 8);  Documents related to communications between SJUSD employees regarding Linan and his misconduct (Request No. 11);  Documents related to SJUSD’s mandated reports to and communications with law enforcement regarding Linan (Request Nos. 12 and 13); and  Insurance policies (Request No. 29).

Plaintiffs also ask the Court to enter an order pursuant to the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 (“FERPA”). (See Ganci Decl., Exh. 1.) On April 21, 2026, the Court entered a stipulated protective order governing the production of confidential information in this case. However, the order is not a FERPA order and does not govern the release of student information.

Legal Standard

A party responding to a request for production must respond separately to each request by any of the following:

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV023391: JOHN DOE 1, et al. vs LINAN 08/17/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Production of Documents in Department 8C

(1) A statement that the party will comply with the particular demand by the date set for the inspection, copying, testing, or sampling pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (c) of Section 2031.030 and any related activities.

(2) A representation that the party lacks the ability to comply with the demand.

(3) An objection to the particular demand.

(Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.210(a).)

If a responding party objects to a request for production, the response must identify any document being withheld on the basis of an objection, and the response must “[s]et forth clearly the extent of, and the specific ground for, the objection. If an objection is based on a claim of privilege, the particular privilege invoked shall be stated. If an objection is based on a claim that the information sought is protected [attorney] work product, that claim shall be expressly asserted.” (Code Civ. Proc § 2031.240(b)(1)-(2).) The failure to set forth a particular ground for objection in a discovery response waives the right to raise the objection later. (See, e.g., Stadish v. Superior Court (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 1130, 1141; Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. Superior Court. (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 263, 274.)

“If only part of a [demand] is objectionable, the response shall contain a statement of compliance, or a representation of inability to comply with respect to the remainder of that item or category.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.240(a).) And “[i]f an objection is based on a claim of privilege or a claim that the information sought is protected work product, the response shall provide sufficient factual information for other parties to evaluate the merits of that claim, including, if necessary, a privilege log.” (Id. at subd. (c)(1).)

The requesting party is entitled to obtain an order compelling further responses if the responding party’s statement of compliance to a demand is incomplete, the responding party’s representation of inability to comply is inadequate or evasive, or the responding party has made an objection that is without merit or is too general. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.310(a).) Such a motion must set forth “specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.310(b)(1).)

The burden of showing good cause “is met simply by a factspecific showing of relevance.” (Glenfed Dev. Corp. v. Super. Ct. (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1117.) If “good cause” is shown by the moving party, the burden is on the responding party to justify any objections made to the demands. (Kirkland v. Super. Ct. (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 92, 98 [citing Coy v. Super. Ct. (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220-221].)

Applying the foregoing standards to SJUSD’s responses to the requests at issue, the Court rules on Plaintiffs’ motion as follows.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV023391: JOHN DOE 1, et al. vs LINAN 08/17/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Production of Documents in Department 8C

Discussion

Service of Separate Statement

SJUSD contends that the motion is untimely because Plaintiffs did not file and serve their separate statement with the initial moving papers filed on April 8, 2026, but instead filed and served the separate statement on May 6, 2026, which is more than 45 days after SJUSD served its verified responses to the requests. A separate statement is required for a motion to compel further responses to requests for production of documents. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(a)(3).) However, the Code expressly allows for a party to file a “concise outline” instead of a separate statement upon leave of court. (Code Civ.

Proc. § 2031.310(b)(3).) This indicates that the separate statement requirement is not jurisdictional. From the Court’s perspective, the question is whether Plaintiffs’ timely-filed initial papers provided SJUSD with sufficient information such that it had notice of the issues and requests to which it was obligated to address. The Court finds that there was sufficient information. Plaintiffs’ memorandum of points and authorities identifies the requests at issue in the motion and presents arguments for the categories of requests as famed by Plaintiffs.

Additionally, there is no indication of prejudice to SJUSD, as the separate statement was filed and served two months before the prior July 6, 2026 hearing date in this matter, leaving SJUSD with sufficient time to respond to the separate statement with its opposition papers.

Meet and Confer

SJUSD next contends that Plaintiffs failed to meet and confer on all of the issues presented in the motion. Specifically, SJUSD contends that Plaintiffs’ counsel only raised Linan’s personnel file and a proposed FERPA stipulation and order, but did not address police reports or investigations. SJUSD thus appears to contend that the Court should only address requests related to Linan’s personnel file and those to which the proposed FERPA stipulation and order pertain.

SJUSD’s argument is rejected. While Plaintiffs’ meet and confer showing could have been more thorough, the specific manner in which SJUSD has challenged the meet and confer efforts is without merit. SJUSD acknowledges that the parties discussed the proposed FERPA stipulation and order, but then argues that the Court should not consider the requests related to police reports or investigations. It is not clear specifically which requests SJUSD contends the Court should not consider, and the FERPA order is relevant to all of the requests at issue except for the request seeking insurance policies, which SJUSD does not contend should not be considered. Thus, it appears to the Court that the parties adequately met and conferred before this motion was filed.

Linan’s Personnel File (Request Nos. 10 and 14)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV023391: JOHN DOE 1, et al. vs LINAN 08/17/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Production of Documents in Department 8C

Request No. 10 broadly seeks essentially all documents that could conceivably be included in Linan’s personnel file. Request No. 14 seeks all documents “reflecting” SJUSD’s suspension or termination of Linan, including documents related to complaints against and investigations into Linan. (Plaintiffs’ Separate Statement, p. 63.) In response to both, SJUSD stated:

Objection. This request for production invades the privacy interests of the identified former employee of the San Juan Unified School District. In addition, the request may violate the privacy interests of the third parties including pupils or former pupils of the District. Pursuant to Education Code, federal statute, the California Constitution and SJUSD’s Board Policies, it cannot produce personnel file materials absent written authorization by the employee or a court order requiring district to produce same.

(Plaintiff’s Separate Statement, pp. 32, 63.)

SJUSD maintains that it is not permitted to release Linan’s personnel file without his authorization or a court order. SJUSD asserts that it has requested Linan’s authorization but has not received a response. SJUSD does not dispute that Plaintiffs are entitled to review Linan’s personnel file.

To the extent Request Nos. 10 and 14 seek production of Linan’s personnel file, the motion is GRANTED. SJUSD agrees that Plaintiffs are entitled to review Linan’s personnel file in this case, and the Court finds that Linan’s privacy interests in the content of his personnel file are significantly outweighed by Plaintiffs’ need for the information, particularly since Plaintiffs’ theory of liability is based on negligent hiring, retention, and/or supervision.

To the extent SJUSD objects on the basis that certain documents encompassed by the requests may include identifying information of students and former students, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have established good cause for production, and that SJUSD has not justified its objections.

For one, SJUSD has not identified any documents being withheld on the basis of third-party privacy, particularly student privacy. (See Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.240(b)(1).) Although SJUSD produced a privilege log with its responses, the privilege log is not correlated to any individual responses or requests. This alone warrants a further response.

“The right of privacy in the California Constitution (art. I, § 1), ‘protects the individual’s reasonable expectation of privacy against a serious invasion.’” (Puerto v. Superior Court (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1242, 1250 [quoting Pioneer Electronics (USA), Inc. v. Super. Ct. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 360, 370].) “While there are many different phrasings of the analysis that is performed

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV023391: JOHN DOE 1, et al. vs LINAN 08/17/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Production of Documents in Department 8C

when a discovery request seeks arguably private information, the constant theme among the decisions is that in deciding whether to permit discovery that touches upon privacy, ‘California courts balance the public need against the weight of the right.’ [Citation.]” (Ibid.) “Drawing this ultimate balance requires a careful evaluation of the privacy right asserted, the magnitude of the imposition on that right, and the interests militating for and against any intrusion on privacy.” (Ibid.)

The California Supreme Court has articulated the analytical framework for balancing privacy and discovery. (Puerto, supra, at p. 1250.)

First, a claimant must possess a “legally protected privacy interest.” [Citation.] Second, the claimant must have a reasonable expectation of privacy under the particular circumstances, including the customs, practices, and physical settings surrounding particular activities. [Citation.] Third, the invasion of privacy must be serious in nature, scope, and actual or potential impact. Trivial invasions do not create a cause of action. [Citation.] If there is a reasonable expectation of privacy and the invasion of privacy is serious, then the court must balance the privacy interest at stake against other competing or countervailing interests, which include the interest of the requesting party, fairness to the litigants in conducting the litigation, and the consequences of granting or restricting access to the information. [Citation.]

(Id. at pp. 1250-1251 [citing Pioneer Electronics (USA), Inc., supra, 40 Cal.4th at pp. 370-371 and Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Association (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1, 35-37].)

SJUSD contends that the documents with student identifying information may be protected by FERPA, the California Education Code, and the constitutional right to privacy. Plaintiffs argue that the documents are not protected by FERPA or the California Education Code because they are not pupil or education records, and any privacy interest related to student identifying information is outweighed by Plaintiffs’ need for the discovery.

“California law defines ‘pupil records’ as ‘any item of information directly related to an identifiable pupil, other than directory information, which is maintained by a school district.’ FERPA defines ‘“education records”’ in nearly identical terms.” (BRV, Inc. v. Superior Court (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 742, 752 (BRV).) The BRV court continued:

Certainly the language of [the Education Code], though broadly written, does not encompass every document that relates to a student in any way and is kept by the school in any fashion. A pupil record is one that “directly relates” to a student and is “maintained” by the school. We agree with the Supreme Court that the statute was directed at institutional records maintained in the normal course of business by a single,

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV023391: JOHN DOE 1, et al. vs LINAN 08/17/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Production of Documents in Department 8C

central custodian of the school. Typical of such records would be registration forms, class schedules, grade transcripts, discipline reports, and the like.

(Id. at p. 754.)

The Court agrees that documents related to complaints about and investigations into Linan are not protected under FERPA or the Education Code, even when they include student identifying information.

Regarding third-party privacy, while students (and their parents) have a privacy interest as to student identifying information, Plaintiffs’ need for the information outweighs this interest, given the elements of Plaintiffs’ claim against SJUSD, which requires a showing that SJUSD knew or should have known that Linan was unfit. Additionally, the existing protective order in place in this case ensures that the information will not be publicly disclosed.

Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motion is GRANTED in full with respect to Request Nos. 10 and 14.

Prior Complaints About and Investigations Into Linan; Mandated Reports and Communications With Law Enforcement (Request Nos. 1, 2, 7, 8, 12, and 13)

These requests present the same interests discussed in the preceding section, and the Court reaches the same conclusion. Thus, Plaintiffs’ motion is GRANTED with respect to Request Nos. 1, 2, 7, 8, 12, and 13.

Insurance Information (Request No. 29)

Plaintiffs seek “[a]ll policies of insurance that do or may provide coverage” to SJUSD in this case, “including but not limited to any policy issued through a Joint Powers Authority.” (Plaintiffs’ Separate Statement, p. 70.) SJUSD responded, “Responding party agrees to produce those records within its possession responsive to this request with information related to third parties redacted. Please see documents produced herewith, Bates No. 000516.” (Plaintiffs’ Separate Statement, p. 70.) Plaintiffs contend that the document produced by SJUSD is partially redacted such that certain levels of available insurance coverage are not disclosed.

In opposition, SJUSD contends: “The District produced the responsive insurance policies under which SJUSD, should they be found liable, would be applicable to satisfy a judgment in this action. The redacted portions are not related to Plaintiffs’ causes of action against the District and thus need not be disclosed.” (Opp. MPA, pp. 9:28-10:3.) SJUSD’s privilege log includes the redacted insurance policy information and provides the basis for the redaction as third-party privacy, attorney-client privilege, and attorney work product. (See Ganci Decl., Exh. 2.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV023391: JOHN DOE 1, et al. vs LINAN 08/17/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Production of Documents in Department 8C

SJUSD’s response is improper as it does not clearly state the basis for its objections in the response itself. (Code Civ. Proc § 2031.240(b)(2).) Even if the objections are properly asserted, Plaintiffs have established good cause for the production of an unredacted copy of the document, and SJUSD has not justified its objections. Insurance coverage information is statutorily discoverable. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2017.210.) The Court agrees that Plaintiffs are entitled to assess the policy document themselves to determine whether the redacted coverage is applicable to Plaintiffs’ claims. Moreover, SJUSD has not identified any privacy applicable privacy interest and has not attempted to justify its attorney-client privilege or work product objections.

Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motion is GRANTED with respect to Request No.

29.

FERPA Order

As noted above, Plaintiffs submit a proposed FERPA stipulation and order, which Plaintiffs contend is substantially similar, if not identical, to previous FERPA orders entered in cases involving Plaintiffs’ counsel’s firm and SJUSD’s counsel’s firm. Plaintiffs’ motion does not provide much information regarding the parties’ discussion of the proposed FERPA order, but SJUSD’s opposition shows that Plaintiffs’ counsel sent a proposed FERPA order (whether it is the same one attached to counsel’s declaration is unclear) on January 23, 2026. (See Bray Decl., Exh. E.) SJUSD objects to the proposed order submitted with the moving papers.

The Court finds that the parties have not adequately met and conferred on the proposed FERPA order. The only evidence of any communication regarding a FERPA order consists of Plaintiffs’ counsel’s January 23, 2026 email attaching a proposed FERPA order that may or may not be the same as the one submitted with Plaintiffs’ motion.

Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motion for entry of a FERPA order is DENIED without prejudice to Plaintiffs’ filing a renewed motion after sufficiently meeting and conferring with SJUSD.

Disposition

Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further responses is GRANTED in full. SJUSD shall serve verified further responses without objections by no later than August 31, 2026, or a later date agreed to by the parties in writing.

Plaintiffs’ request for entry of a FERPA order is DENIED without prejudice.

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1019.5; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1312.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV023391: JOHN DOE 1, et al. vs LINAN 08/17/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Production of Documents in Department 8C