DOE vs CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, et al.

24CV025817: DOE vs CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, et al. 09/24/2025 Hearing on Motion for Protective Order in Department 53

Tentative Ruling

NOTICE: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to “Public Notice – Civil Division – Wednesday Law and Motion Calendar” any oral arguments regarding this tentative ruling will be heard in Department 25, located at 720 9th Street, Sacramento, CA, the Hon. Julie G. Yap presiding. Should argument be requested by either party, the requesting party must call the Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-2615, by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the hearing, request the hearing, and notify the opposing party of the location and time of hearing pursuant to Local Rule 1.06.

At the time of requesting oral argument, the requesting party shall leave a voice mail 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 it has notified the opposing party of its intention to appear and that opposing party may appear via Zoom using the Zoom link and Meeting ID indicated below. If no request for oral argument is made, the tentative ruling becomes the final order of the Court.

The Court encourages parties to appear remotely for the hearing on the tentative ruling through the Court’s Zoom Application. But, any party wishing to appear in person may do so, provided that party notifies the Court by 4:00 the Court day before the hearing. 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/my/sscdept25 SIP Address: 16113421868@sip.zoomgov.com (833) 568-8864 ID: 16113421868 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

24CV025817: DOE vs CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, et al. 09/24/2025 Hearing on Motion for Protective Order in Department 53

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

Defendant California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s (“Defendant”) Motion for a Protective Order is ruled upon as follows.

Factual Background

This case arises out of the alleged childhood sexual assault of Plaintiff by an employee of Defendant. Plaintiff filed his complaint alleging causes of action for negligence; negligent supervision, training, hiring, and retention; sexual battery; assault; and violation of Civil Code Sections 51.7, 51.9, 52, 52.1, 52.3 & 52.4. On May 8, 2025, Defendant filed a demurrer to Plaintiff’s complaint, which is currently set to be heard on December 11, 2025.

On March 12, 2025 Plaintiff propounded requests for production of documents, special interrogatories, and form interrogatories on Defendant. (Banegas Decl., ¶ 4.) Defendant has not yet responded to these requests. (Banegas Decl., ¶¶ 8-15.)

Defendant now moves for a protective order pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 2017.020, 2030.90, and 2031.060 regarding the above discovery, “on grounds that responding to the discovery will result in undue burden and expense.” (Not. of Mot., p. 1:28-2:1.) Plaintiff opposes, arguing that Defendant’s arguments are without merit, and that public policy favors discovery.

Legal Standard

Code of Civil Procedure section 2017.020(a) provides that:

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV025817: DOE vs CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, et al. 09/24/2025 Hearing on Motion for Protective Order in Department 53

The court shall limit the scope of discovery if it determines that the burden, expense, or intrusiveness of that discovery clearly outweighs the likelihood that the information sought will lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The court may make this determination pursuant to a motion for protective order by a party or other affected person. This motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.

The court is empowered to issue whatever order “justice requires” to protect a party or deponent against “unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression, or undue burden and expense.” (Code Civ. Proc § 2025.420(b); see Nativi v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co. (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 261, 316.) A motion for a protective order should only be granted if the Court “determines that the burden, expense, or intrusiveness of that discovery clearly outweighs the likelihood that the information sought will lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” (Code of Civ. Proc. §§ 2017.020(a), 2019.030(a).)

The burden for a motion for a protective order is on the moving party to establish “good cause” for the requested relief: “Generally, a deponent seeking a protective order will be required to show that the burden, expense, or intrusiveness involved in [the discovery procedure] clearly outweighs the likelihood that the information sought will lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” (Emerson Elec. Co. v. Sup.Ct. (Grayson) (1997) 16 Cal.4th 1101, 1110; see Nativi v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co., supra, 223 Cal.App.4th at p. 318.)

Discussion

Defendant argues that it has complete immunity from Plaintiff’s lawsuit pursuant to Government Code section 844.6, which will be resolved by demurrer. As such, Defendant seeks a protective order which provides that it need not respond to discovery until thirty days after the Court rules on Defendant’s demurrer. Plaintiff opposes, arguing that Defendant’s pending demurrer is not grounds to stay discovery.

Defendant in support of its motion, Defendant cites to Warburton/Buttner v. Superior Court (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 1170 for the proposition that “where sovereign immunity issues are presented, putting subject matter jurisdiction into question, “‘discovery and fact-finding should be limited to the essentials necessary to determining the preliminary question of jurisdiction.’” (Id., at p. 1181.) Defendant argues that Plaintiff should be limited to discovery specifically as to Defendant’s immunity.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV025817: DOE vs CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, et al. 09/24/2025 Hearing on Motion for Protective Order in Department 53

Warburton/Buttner is distinguishable here, as it involves sovereign immunity, as opposed to statutory immunity. As noted in Warburton/Buttner, “sovereign immunity is not a discretionary doctrine,” “it presents a pure jurisdictional question.” (Id., at p. 1182.) While Defendant contends that Government Code section 844.6 provides absolute immunity, it does not provide sovereign immunity. Defendant has presented no caselaw which would apply this rule similarly to statutory immunity.

Defendant further argues that it is Plaintiff’s duty to serve all proper defendants, and that “[f]orcing CDCR to litigate this case while it’s demurrer is pending allows Plaintiff to evade his obligation to locate and serve the proper defendant and defeat CDCR’s statutorily granted immunity.” (Mot., p. 6:2-4.) As noted by Plaintiff, the cited portion of Nelson v. State of California (1982) 139 Cal.App.3d 72, 77 pertains to a motion to dismiss individual defendants after three years of non-service, and has no pertinence to the request for a protective order pending ruling on demurrer.

Defendant further cites to Catsouras v. Department of California Highway Patrol (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 856, 894 in which the court found that qualified immunity is “lost if a case is erroneously permitted to go to trial.” This similarly has no application to the motion presently before the Court. Catsouras does not stand for the proposition that immunity is lost if a party engages in discovery, as is alluded by Defendant.

The Court will not stay discovery simply because Defendant has a demurrer set to be heard in December. While the Court has broad discretion to stay discovery in a case where a dispositive motion is pending, “...such motions are disfavored because discovery stays may interfere with judicial efficiency and cause unnecessary litigation in the future.” (Qwest Communs. Corp. v. Herakles, LLC (E.D. Cal. 2007) 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57757.) Further, the filing of a demurrer is not ordinarily a basis for staying discovery despite Defendant’s claim that Plaintiff’s lawsuit lacks merit.

Indeed, a defendant who challenges a pleading by filing a demurrer must still respond to discovery even if the demurrer is ultimately dispositive. (Budget Finance Plan v. Superior Court (1973) 34 Cal.App.3d 794, 797; Mattco Forge, Inc. v. Arthur Young & Co. (1990) 223 Cal.App.3d 1429, 1436; Union Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Sup. Ct. (1978) 80 Cal.App.3d 1, 12.)

Based on the foregoing, the Court declines to circumvent the statutory entitlement for discovery based on Defendant’s speculative belief it will prevail on its pending demurrer.

The motion for protective order is DENIED.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV025817: DOE vs CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, et al. 09/24/2025 Hearing on Motion for Protective Order in Department 53

The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312 or further notice is required.