RIVERA vs SACRAMENTO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, A PUBLIC ENTITY, et al.

24CV016415: RIVERA vs SACRAMENTO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, A PUBLIC ENTITY, et al. 08/25/2025 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Requests for Admission in Department 54

Tentative Ruling

NOTICE:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that any oral arguments regarding this tentative ruling will be heard in Department 28, located at 720 9th Street, Sacramento, CA, the Hon. Richard C. Miadich 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.

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 at (916) 874-2615, 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/my/sscdept28

SIP Address:

16039062174@sip.zoomgov.com

24CV016415: RIVERA vs SACRAMENTO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, A PUBLIC ENTITY, et al. 08/25/2025 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Requests for Admission in Department 54

(833) 568-8864

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

Plaintiff Mary Rivera’s (“Plaintiff”) motion to compel Defendant Sacramento City Unified School District (“the District”) to serve further responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Admissions, 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 is ordered to appear at the hearing by Zoom or in person.

This action involves allegations of childhood sexual assault. Plaintiff alleges that in 2010, she volunteered as a student aide in an afterschool program jointly run by the District and Defendant City of Sacramento (“the City”). The program was known as the START program and was

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV016415: RIVERA vs SACRAMENTO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, A PUBLIC ENTITY, et al. 08/25/2025 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Requests for Admission in Department 54

located at Mark Twain Elementary School (“Mark Twain”). Plaintiff alleges that one of the program’s leaders, Joshua Rolando Vasquez, groomed her over a period of time before sexually assaulting her inside of a classroom at Mark Twain. Plaintiff alleges that Vasquez sexually assaulted several other minors in the START program, and in 2016 he was convicted of childhood sexual assault. Plaintiff’s complaint includes three causes of action: (1) negligence; (2) negligent hiring, retention, and supervision; and (3) negligence per se. Plaintiff alleges that the District knew or should have known about Vasquez’s behavior and failed to adequately supervise him during his interactions with minors in the START program.

The present motion involves a single request for admission (“RFA”). In RFA No. 3, Plaintiff asked the District to admit that Plaintiff “was a minor within the Sacramento City Unified School District during the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD,” with the relevant time period defined as 2009- 2010. The District’s response states, in full, “Objection. This request for admission is vague as phrased. Without waiving said objection, responding party admits that Plaintiff was a minor within the time-frame designated in the request.” (Kargman Decl., Exh. 2, p. 3:8-9.)

Plaintiff contends that the District’s objection is merely a nuisance objection, and it is meritless because the District fails to explain what is vague about the request. Plaintiff also contends that the District’s substantive response is incomplete, as it fails to admit or deny whether Plaintiff was a minor within the District.

The District contends that it admitted as much as it could in its response to the request. Specifically, the District contends that because Plaintiff’s definition of the relevant time period did not specify that it included only academic years, “the District could not admit the totality of this request,” because “while Plaintiff was on summer break from school in the summer of 2009, she would not be a minor within the District.” (Opp., p. 2:27-28.) The District further contends that the word “within” as used in the request is ambiguous, and Plaintiff’s counsel failed to clarify its meaning during the parties’ meet and confer discussions.

“Each answer in a response to requests for admission shall be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.220(a).) Each answer shall admit so much of the matter involved in the request as is true, deny so much that is untrue, and specify the matter as to the truth of which the responding party lacks sufficient information or knowledge. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.220(b).) If the responding party states that it lacks sufficient information or knowledge to admit or deny, it must also state “that a reasonable inquiry concerning the matter in the particular request has been made, and that the information known or readily obtainable is insufficient to enable that party to admit the matter.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.220(c).)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV016415: RIVERA vs SACRAMENTO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, A PUBLIC ENTITY, et al. 08/25/2025 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Requests for Admission in Department 54

The District’s response to RFA No. 3 fails to comply with the requirements of section 2033.220. The response does not admit, deny, or state that the District lacks sufficient knowledge with respect to whether Plaintiff was a student in the district during the relevant time period. The inadequacy of the District’s response is evident from its argument in its opposition that it “could not admit the totality of this request” (Opp., p. 2:27) because Plaintiff was not a student within the District during the summer.

In other words, per the District’s argument, the statement in RFA No. 3 is untrue to the extent it applies to the summer months of 2009 and 2010, so the District’s response should be a denial as to this aspect of the request. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.220(b)(2).) The District’s vagueness objection is not well-taken and is overruled, as RFA No. 3 is not so vague that the District is unable to answer part of the request. In the context of this litigation, it is apparent that “within the District” means a student enrolled in the District.

Moreover, the Code provides a mechanism for a party responding to a request for admission to reasonably qualify its response where appropriate, and a slightly ambiguous request would seem to be an appropriate scenario for such a mechanism to be utilized. (See Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.220(b)(1).) Thus, a further response is warranted.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED. The District shall serve a verified further response to RFA No. 3 by no later than September 15, 2025, or a later date agreed to by the parties in writing.

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.)