L. vs SAN JUAN UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al.

25CV005323: L. vs SAN JUAN UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al. 08/27/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One in Department 16C

Tentative Ruling

Moving counsel states the incorrect address for the hearing in its Notice of Motion and does not provide notice of the Court’s tentative ruling system, as required by Local Rule 1.06(D). Department 54 has moved to Department 16C at the Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye Courthouse at 500 G Street, Sacramento, CA 95814. Moving counsel is directed to contact opposing counsel forthwith to advise counsel of the correct Department/address for the hearing, Local Rule 1.06, and the Court’s tentative ruling procedure. If moving counsel is unable to contact opposing counsel prior to the hearing, they shall be available at the hearing in the event opposing counsel appears without following the procedures set forth in Local Rule 1.06(B).

Plaintiff D.L.’s (“Plaintiff”) motion to compel Defendant San Juan Unified School District (“District”) to provide further responses and produce documents, without objection, in response to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents, set one (“RFP”) Nos. 1-3, 14-17, 40-44, and 48-49 is ruled upon as follows.

Background

In this action, Plaintiffs D.L. and T.F. (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) allege Defendant Ricky Anthony Linan (“Linan”) repeatedly sexually abused, assaulted, and molested them during the course and scope of his employment with the District, while Plaintiffs were minor elementary school students enrolled in Discovery Club, a District-operated childcare program that provided before and after-school care and summer care.

Plaintiffs allege that they are informed and believe that Linan had been transferred from several schools within the District due to similar sexually inappropriate behavior towards other students, and that despite this knowledge, the District permitted Linan to continue working at Discovery Club without imposing restrictions on his access to minor students.

The operative pleading, the First Amended Complaint, alleges causes of action for: (1) sexual abuse of a minor, (2) intentional infliction of emotional distress, (3) negligent hiring, supervision, training and retention, (4) breach of mandatory duty: failure to report suspected child abuse, (5) negligent supervision of students, and (6) negligence. Plaintiffs allege the third, fourth, and fifth causes of action against the District.

25CV005323: L. vs SAN JUAN UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al. 08/27/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One in Department 16C

On July 30, 2025, Plaintiff propounded the RFP on the District. (Decl. of Alexandra Laine Baldermann ISO Mot. (“Baldermann Decl.”) ¶ 3, Ex. 2.) The District served its responses to the RFP on October 31, 2025, objecting to the production of several documents. (Id. at ¶ 4, Ex. 4.)

After meeting and conferring regarding the District’s responses, the instant motion followed. The motion concerns RFP Nos. 1-3, 14-17, 40-44, and 48-49.

Discussion

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

(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, subd. (a).)

If a responding party objects to a request for production, 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, subd. (b)(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.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV005323: L. vs SAN JUAN UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al. 08/27/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One in Department 16C

“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, subd. (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 to a RFP 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, subd. (a).) Such a motion must set forth “specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand.” (Code Civ.

Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (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 the District’s responses to the subject RFPs, the Court rules on Plaintiff’s Motion as follows.

RFP Nos. 1-3, 49

RFP Nos. 1-3, and 49 concern Linan’s employment file, documents related to any transfers/reassignment of Linan within the District’s schools while its employee, any behavioral complaints[1] made against Linan, and any documents which relate to any disciplinary action taken by the District against Linan.

The District responded to each of these RFPs by objecting on third-party privacy grounds. Specifically, the District stated that these RFPs “invade[] the privacy interests of a former employee of San Juan Unified School District. Absent written authorization from the identified former employee or a court order, this responding party is unable to produce a personnel file for the identified employee.”

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV005323: L. vs SAN JUAN UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al. 08/27/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One in Department 16C

Plaintiff argues that the “need for discovery of information contained within Linan’s personnel file outweighs any asserted privacy interest, particularly where appropriate protective measures may be implemented.” (Mot. 6:15-18.) Plaintiff argues:

the [subject] records are in the sole possession, custody, and control of the District and are virtually impossible for Plaintiffs to obtain through any other means. Plaintiffs are entitled to a fair opportunity to litigate their claims, and such opportunity cannot exist without access to documents directly bearing on notice, supervision, and institutional responsibility. Accordingly, the compelling interest in the ascertainment of truth outweighs any asserted privacy concerns, and Plaintiffs’ Motion should be granted.

(Mot. 6:19-24.)

Further, in reply, Plaintiff states that Linan’s personal contact information, medical information, and Social Security number can be redacted from any responsive documents, the responses can be made pursuant to the terms of the parties’ Stipulated Protective Order (“Protective Order”), and notice can be provided to Linan of the production.[2]

The District opposes the motion, responding:

[The District] does not disagree that Plaintiff has a right to review Ricky Linan’s personnel file and other employment- related information given the nature of the allegations in this case. However, under California Law and its own Administrative Regulation, the District is not at liberty to share that documentation or information absent an authorization from Ricky Linan allowing it to do so, or a court order. District has been transparent with Plaintiff with the limitations for which they are hamstrung. To this end, this request for production of documents as it relates to Ricky Linan’s right of privacy requires a court order.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV005323: L. vs SAN JUAN UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al. 08/27/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One in Department 16C

(Opp’n 7:2-8.)

The Court finds that Plaintiff has shown good cause for the documents requested and overrules the District’s third-party privacy objection.

“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 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.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV005323: L. vs SAN JUAN UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al. 08/27/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One in Department 16C

370-371 and Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Association (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1, 35-37].)

In this case, a legally protected privacy interest is implicated by the requests, i.e., Linan’s employment records and personnel information.[3] (See, e.g., San Diego Trolley, Inc. v. Super. Ct. (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1083, 1097, overruled in part on other grounds in Williams v. Super. Ct. (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 557 [“[I]t is clear [that a person’s] personnel records and employment history are within the scope of the protection provided by the state and federal Constitutions.”].)

However, the Court finds that Linan’s privacy rights are outweighed by Plaintiff’s competing interests. The requested documents are directly relevant to core issues in this litigation, and responsive documents can be produced under the existing Protective Order, which mitigates the privacy intrusion. Further, per Plaintiff’s agreement, Linan’s personal contact information, medical information, and Social Security number can be redacted from any responsive documents. Lastly, per Plaintiff’s agreement, Plaintiff shall serve Linan with a copy of this ruling.

For the stated reasons, Plaintiff’s motion is granted as to RFP Nos. 1-3, and 49. Plaintiff is entitled to a further, verified response to these RFPs without objections.

RFP Nos. 14-17, 42-44

RFP Nos. 14-17 and 42-44 seek police reports, witness statements, and other investigatory materials concerning the allegations at issue in this action.

In response to each of these RFPs, the District objected as follows:

Objection. This request for production of documents seeks materials equally available to the propounding party, and materials more available to propounding party than responding party. Furthermore, the request violates the privacy interests of third parties. The request seeks production of “controlled documents” issued by the Citrus Heights Police Department.

Plaintiff argues that further responses to these RFPs, without objections, are warranted.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV005323: L. vs SAN JUAN UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al. 08/27/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One in Department 16C

Plaintiff asserts:

The District’s assertion that the requested documents are “equally available” is not a valid basis to refuse discovery. The fact that a document may also be obtainable from a third party does not relieve a responding party of its obligation to produce documents within its possession, custody, or control. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.010.) A party is obligated to produce documents within its possession, custody, or control regardless of whether the same materials might also be obtainable from another source. The District does not dispute that responsive documents exist or that it has maintained records relating to law enforcement involvement. Accordingly, it may not avoid its discovery obligations by directing Plaintiffs to another source.

The District’s claim that the documents are “controlled” by law enforcement is likewise without merit. The fact that documents originated with, or were generated in connection with, law enforcement does not render them undiscoverable. Documents in a party’s possession or control remain subject to discovery unless a specific privilege applies. Here, the District has not asserted any recognized privilege and has not produced a privilege log identifying any documents withheld on that basis. To the extent the District received police reports, witness statements, investigative materials, or correspondence from the Citrus Heights Police Department, those documents are subject to production. A responding party may not avoid discovery by asserting that another entity originally created the documents.

(Mot. 8:3-19.)

///

The District responds:

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV005323: L. vs SAN JUAN UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al. 08/27/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One in Department 16C

Similar to the Plaintiff’s request to Produce Defendant Ricky Linan’s personnel file, the District is prohibited from unilaterally determining that it may produce “controlled documents” obtained from the Citrus Heights Police Department. These documents specifically state on each page produced; the date of production, the public employee who produced the documents, to whom and the following, “CONTROLLED DOCUMENT DUPLICATION OR REISSUANCE IS CONTROLLED BY LAW.” As to DISTRICT records, the extent that they exist regarding complaints, investigations and reports these records also require an Order.

The District finds that CA Penal Code section 1054.2 supports the District’s objections properly asserted in their Responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents No’s 14-17 and 4[2]-44. Under these circumstances, Plaintiffs seek victim and witness information that was obtained by public District employees as well as the Citrus Heights Police Department. The code provides that “no attorney shall disclose or permit to be disclosed to a defendant, or anyone else, the personal identifying information of a victim or witness whose name is disclosed to the attorney pursuant to subdivision (a) of section 1054.1. (emphasis added).

Criminal defense attorneys, and by extension any civil counsel working with them are prohibited from disclosing victims or witnesses’ address, phone, or personal identifying information to anyone else unless explicitly authorized by a judge. Handing these records directly over to civil opposing counsel without redaction or court approval may subject the District employees or counsel to a misdemeanor.

The District has properly objected to Plaintiffs’ requested records – including police reports, witness

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV005323: L. vs SAN JUAN UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al. 08/27/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One in Department 16C

statements, photographs, investigative materials, and related correspondence. Plaintiff’s [RFP] Nos. 14-17 and 4[2]-44 request documents that are at the heart of the pending criminal investigation and prosecution. District is a public entity that has received official information that relates to the pending criminal lawsuit. The CA Evidence Code section 1040 provides in part that a public entity has a privilege to refuse to disclose official information and to prevent another from disclosing official information, the privilege is claimed by a person authorized by the public entity to do so and either of the following apply: (1) Disclosure is forbidden by an act of the Congress of the United States or a statute of this state. (2) Disclosure of information is against the public interest because there is a necessity for preserving the confidentiality of the information that outweighs the necessity for disclosure in the interest of justice; but no privilege may be claimed under this paragraph if any person authorized to do so has consented that the information be disclosed in the proceeding.[]

While Plaintiff may have a legitimate interest in these documents, there is a pending criminal trial. The Court must weigh whether the disclosure of the information is against the public interest because there is a necessity for reserving the confidentiality of the information that outweighs the necessity of disclosure in the interest of justice. Plaintiffs’ own Motion states, “Where privacy interests are implicated, it is the Court---not the employee----that performs the required balancing between privacy and the requesting party’s need for disclosure.” (See Pltfs. MTC MPA 5:14-16) Likewise, it is not up to the District to perform the balancing test.

Plaintiffs voluntarily withdrew their Petition for Juvenile Law Enforcement Records at the District Attorney’s request. The documents, while heavily redacted, have been produced to other Plaintiffs in the adjacent lawsuits via Subpoena. Had

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV005323: L. vs SAN JUAN UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al. 08/27/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One in Department 16C

Plaintiff continued with the Petition for Juvenile Law Enforcement Records or served a Subpoena they too would likely be in possession of potentially relevant investigative records from the Citrus Heights Police Department. Additionally, while the DISTRICT cannot speak on behalf of the prosecution in the criminal case, Plaintiff’s acknowledgement that the District Attorney requested they not pursue the documents indicates that until the criminal matter is resolved, the Plaintiffs should await to seek these records. Plaintiff’s persistence for these documents appears adverse to their interest to hold Mr. Linan accountable for the alleged acts of sexual abuse upon them.

Should the Court disagree and/or find that production is required by the DISTRICT, the DISTRICT requests the Court perform an in-camera review to determine the scope of information that may be disclosed and which may be redacted. The DISTRICT agrees with the Plaintiff that a Protective Order exists in this matter that may provide protection from further disclosure. However, the DISTRICT disagrees that disclosure of this information may not impact on the criminal case. Such impact of disclosing witness statements to other witnesses and related criminal files may hinder the criminal investigation, prosecution or defense of the matter. The DISTRICT properly objected and is prohibited from releasing the “controlled documents” in its possession without Court Order and possible in-camera review.

Ricky Linan’s criminal case is set for Trial on August 10, 2026. The trial date has moved no less than four times. This matter was first assigned a Trial in July 2025 to begin in September 2025. The District cannot confirm whether August 10, 2026 shall proceed on the date set. However, in the interest of not impeding the criminal prosecution and defense of the criminal matter. District requests that the

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV005323: L. vs SAN JUAN UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al. 08/27/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One in Department 16C

Court deny Plaintiffs request to produce documents in response to RFPD 14-17 and 4[2]-44 including police reports, witness statements, photographs, investigative materials, and related correspondence.

(Opp’n 7:12 - 9:19.)

The Court finds that Plaintiff has shown good cause for the requested documents and overrules the District’s objections.

First, to the extent the District objects to the production of documents responsive to RFP Nos. 14-17 and 42-44 under Evidence Code section 1040 and/or Penal Code sections 1054.1 and 1054.2, the District waived those objections by failing to make them in its initial responses. (See, e.g., Scottsdale Ins. Co., supra, 59 Cal.App.4th at p. 274 [“[The] failure to include an objection expressly based upon attorney-client privilege in the initial response results in waiver of the attorney-client privilege.”].)

The District’s “equally available” objection is also overruled. Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.220, subdivision (c) provides that when responding to interrogatories, the responding party has a duty to “make a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information by inquiry to other natural persons or organizations, except where the information is equally available to the propounding party.” (Emphasis added.) The Civil Discovery Act does not contain an analogous provision for requests for production of documents. (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2031.010, et seq.) This legislative asymmetry indicates that the California Legislature did not intend to extend the “equally available” exception to document production demands.

Next, the “controlled documents” objection is also overruled as the District has not shown it to be a valid objection to a RFP.

Finally, to the extent the District raises third-party privacy concerns as an objection to these RFPs, the Court overrules the objection for the same reasons it stated under its discussion of RFP Nos. 1-3 and 49, above. Responsive documents can be produced under the existing Protective Order. If other current or former District employees or pupils are referenced in any responsive documents (in addition to Linan), the District may also redact their personal contact information, medical information, and Social

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV005323: L. vs SAN JUAN UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al. 08/27/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One in Department 16C

Security numbers.

For the stated reasons, Plaintiff’s motion is granted as to RFP Nos. 14-17 and 42-44. Plaintiff is entitled to a further, verified response to these RFPs without objections.

RFP Nos. 40-41

RFP Nos. 40 and 41 ask the District to produce any and all documents it relied upon in answering Plaintiff’s first set of form and special interrogatories.

The District responded to each of these RFPs by objecting, as follows:

Objection. This request for production is vague, ambiguous and overbroad. The request is not self-contained. Moreover, the request may violate the attorney/client privilege, attorney work product doctrine as well as privacy rights of third parties including pupils and/or former pupils of the district.

Plaintiff seeks further responses to these RFPs, arguing that they are “a standard and proper discovery request expressly contemplated by California’s discovery statutes. [¶] A responding party may not provide factual responses to interrogatories while withholding the documents upon which those responses are based. Documents relied upon in preparing discovery responses are directly relevant to assessing the accuracy, completeness, and credibility of those responses.” (District’s Resp. to Separate Statement 36:1-7.)

The Court agrees and finds that Plaintiff has shown good cause for the requested documents.

Further, the Court overrules the District’s vague, ambiguous, and overbroad objections.

To the extent the District raises a third-party privacy objection to these RFPs, the Court overrules the objection for the same reasons it has previously stated. Responsive documents can be produced under the existing Protective Order, and the personal contact information, medical information, and Social Security numbers of any current or former District employee or pupil can be redacted.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV005323: L. vs SAN JUAN UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al. 08/27/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One in Department 16C

For the stated reasons, Plaintiff’s motion is granted as to RFP Nos. 40-41, in part. Plaintiff is entitled to a further, verified response to these RFPs without objections, except attorney-client privilege and/or attorney work product objections. If the District withholds responsive documents on the basis that they are protected from disclosure under the attorney-client privilege or work product doctrine, the District shall provide a privilege log, which is “sufficiently specific to allow a determination of whether each withheld document is or is not [in] fact privileged.” (Wellpoint Health Networks v.

Super. Ct. (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 110, 130; see also Catalina Island Yacht Club v. Super. Ct. (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 1116, 1130.) “The precise information required for an adequate privilege log will vary from case to case based on the privileges asserted and the underlying circumstances. In general, however, a privilege log typically should provide the identity and capacity of all individuals who authored, sent, or received each allegedly privileged document, the document’s date, a brief description of the document and its contents or subject matter sufficient to determine whether the privilege applies, and the precise privilege or protection asserted.” (Catalina Island Yacht Club, supra, at p. 1130.)

RFP No. 48

RFP No. 48 asks the District to produce “[a]ny and all DOCUMENTS which YOU reviewed to determine whether YOUR school employees and school employees’ supervisors were fit for employment in their capacities as teachers/aides/staff/supervisors of children.”

The District responded to this RFP as follows:

Objection. This request for production is impermissibly overbroad as to campus, type of personnel, program, and time. The request is so impermissibly overbroad that it imposes an undue burden on the responding party in terms of time, location, production and review of such records to the marginal relevance, if any, that the records may provide. In addition, the only personnel at issue is . . . Ricky Linan whose personnel file will be produced upon Ricky Linan’s authorization or court order.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV005323: L. vs SAN JUAN UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al. 08/27/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One in Department 16C

The Court agrees that this RFP is overly broad as originally worded. However, Plaintiff offered in its reply to limit the request to “documents the District actually reviewed in determining fitness for employment as to Linan and as to the employees and supervisors of the afterschool program at issue, for the period of Linan’s employment.” (Reply 8:11-14.)

As limited by Plaintiff, the Court finds Plaintiff has shown good cause to obtain the documents sought.

To the extent the District separately interposed an undue burden objection, it is overruled. Undue burden objections must be accompanied by a specific factual showing setting forth the amount of work necessary to respond to the subject discovery. (West Pico Furniture Co. v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 407, 417-418.) The District’s opposition is devoid of any factual showing whatsoever.

For the stated reasons, Plaintiff’s motion is granted as to RFP No.

48. Plaintiff is entitled to a further, verified response to this RFP (as limited by Plaintiff in the reply) without objections.

Conclusion

Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to the subject RFPs is granted in part and denied in part as stated.

The District shall provide further verified responses, without objections (except attorneyclient privilege and attorney work product doctrine objections where interposed in response to RFPs 40 and 41) consistent with this ruling no later than September 25, 2026, unless the parties mutually agree in writing to a later date.

This minute order is effective immediately. Plaintiff shall provide notice of this ruling to Linan as agreed.

[1] The RFP defines “behavioral complaints” as complaints, “both verbal or written, that involve the disposition and actions of an individual, including engagement in conduct that is known or ought to reasonably be known to be unwelcome, including, but

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV005323: L. vs SAN JUAN UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al. 08/27/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One in Department 16C

not limited to, staring, flirting, inappropriately touching, inappropriate comments, leering, and sexualized comments or jokes.” The RFP defines “complaints” to mean “any and all communications in any form, written or verbal, expressing dissatisfaction, discontent, objections and/or disapproval regarding some type of behavior, conduct and/or comments.” [2] The moving papers were not served on Linan, and the District raises that issue in its opposition. Plaintiff was not obligated to serve Linan with the moving papers since he has not yet appeared in this action. (Code Civ.

Proc., § 1014 [“Where a defendant has not appeared, service of notice or papers need not be made upon the defendant.”].) [3] As a preliminary matter, the Court finds that the District may assert the privacy rights of its former employee. (See County of Los Angeles v. Super. Ct. (2021) 65 Cal.App.5th 621, 635-636 [discussing when a party may assert the privacy rights of third parties].)

NOTICE:

Consistent with Local Rule 1.06(B), any party requesting oral argument on any matter on this calendar must comply with the following procedure:

To request limited oral argument, on any matter on this calendar, you must call the Department 16C Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-1475 by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the hearing and advise opposing counsel. 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.

Unless ordered to appear in person by the Court, parties may appear remotely either telephonically or by video conference via the Zoom video/audio conference platform with notice to the Court and all other parties in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure §367.75. Although remote participation is not required, the Court will presume all parties are appearing remotely for non-evidentiary civil hearings.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV005323: L. vs SAN JUAN UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al. 08/27/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One in Department 16C

The Department 16C Zoom Link is https://saccourt-cagov.zoomgov.com/j/16030877014 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 160 3087 7014. To appear on Zoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID referenced above. NO COURTCALL APPEARANCES WILL BE ACCEPTED.

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 on the Court Reporter Services webpage available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://saccourt.ca.gov/general-information/court-reporter-servicestranscripts. Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://saccourt.ca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/227/639084034465370000.

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 forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.