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 Responses to Special Interrogatories 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 Responses to Special Interrogatories 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 Special Interrogatories, 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 Responses to Special Interrogatories 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.

“Each answer in a response to interrogatories shall be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.220(a).) Interrogatories that cannot be answered completely “shall be answered to the extent possible.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.220(b).) “If the responding party does not have personal knowledge sufficient to respond fully to an interrogatory, that party shall so state, but shall 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.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.220(c).)

The present motion involves two interrogatories, Special Interrogatory Nos. 5 and 27.[1] The Court addresses each in turn.

Special Interrogatory No. 5

Special Interrogatory No. 5 states, “IDENTIFY all DISTRICT employees responsible for supervising VASQUEZ at any time, including, for each supervisor, the time period during which he or she was responsible for supervising VASQUEZ.” (Kargman Decl., Exh. 2, p. 3:6-8.)

The District’s initial response stated:

Objection. This interrogatory is vague and ambiguous as phrased with respect to the term “worked at” Mark Twain Elementary School. Without waiving said objections, and limiting the response to dates that Vasquez worked as a Sacramento City Unified School District employee during the school day at Mark Twain Elementary School, responding party states, the principal and office tech.

(Kargman Decl., Exh. 2, p. 4:15-19.)

The District’s amended response stated:

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 Responses to Special Interrogatories in Department 54

Objection. This interrogatory is vague and ambiguous with respect to the term “supervising”. Without waiving said objections, and limiting the response to dates that Vasquez worked as a Sacramento City Unified School District employee during the school day at Mark Twain Elementary School, responding party states, the principal, Rosario Jovel and office tech, including possibly Rae-Linda M. Jaa, who can be contacted through counsel for the District.

(Kargman Decl., Exh. 8, p. 5:2-6.)

Plaintiff contends that the District waived its objection to the term “supervising” because it did not assert the objection with its initial response. Plaintiff further contends that the response is incomplete because it did not state the time period that the individuals identified in the response were responsible for supervising Vasquez.

The District contends it provided the information available to it, emphasizing that Plaintiff served this interrogatory early in the litigation. The District further contends that its response “explained that the period each employee was responsible for supervising Vasquez was the period when Vasquez was employed by the District, which was several years prior to Vasquez allegedly abusing Plaintiff.” (Opp., p. 3:1-3.) The District continues by asserting that Vasquez was not employed by the District at the time of the alleged abuse, and that the District did not run the START program.

In reply, Plaintiff argues that the District’s argument is contradictory in that if the District is able to identify persons who supervised Vasquez, it can identify the dates those persons were responsible for supervising Vasquez.

The Court agrees with Plaintiff’s arguments. The District waived its objection to the term “supervising” by not asserting it in its initial response. (Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 263, 273-274.) As to the substance of the response, the District cannot limit its response to certain dates while also claiming it cannot provide specific dates when the employees it identified supervised Vasquez. Thus, a further response is warranted.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED as to Special Interrogatory No.

5.

Special Interrogatory No. 27

Special Interrogatory No. 27 states, “IDENTIFY all DISTRICT employees responsible for

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 Responses to Special Interrogatories in Department 54

responding to or handling complaints of SEXUAL ASSAULT at SCHOOL during the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD.” (Kargman Decl., Exh. 2, p. 6:17-18.)

The District’s response stated:

Objection. This interrogatory is vague and ambiguous, and also poses an incomplete hypothetical regarding the nature of any specific complaint. Furthermore, the term “sexual assault” is not properly defined. Last, the interrogatory is vague with respect to the terms “responding to” or “handling complaints.” Without waiving said objections, all SCUSD personnel at Mark Twain Elementary School were mandated reporters, and if they knew or had reasonable suspicion of child sexual abuse, the policy of the district as communicated to all staff at their hiring and annually thereafter would be to contact law enforcement or CPS.

In addition, to the extent that a report was made to staff that may or may not rise to the level of known or reasonably suspected childhood sexual abuse, or if it involved a situation where a child was not at risk of further or ongoing abuse, the information would be expected to be communicated to the principal at the site who would then involve district level personnel as needed based upon their training and depending upon the nature of the report.

(Kargman Decl., Exh. 3, p. 15:2-13.)

Plaintiff asserts that the District’s vague and ambiguous objection constitutes a nuisance objection and is without merit since the objected-to terms are commonly understood. Plaintiff also argues that the incomplete hypothetical objection is not a proper interrogatory objection. Plaintiff also argues that the objection that the term “sexual assault” is not properly defined is meritless since the term is defined in the interrogatory by reference to the definition in Code of Civil Procedure section 340.1(d). As to the substance of the response, Plaintiff contends that the District only identified job titles—the principal and “district level personnel,” and did not identify these individuals by name as required.

In opposition, the District reiterates that all of its teachers are mandated reporters, and that, depending on the specific facts, a teacher who received a complaint of sexual assault would alert the principal, who would then elevate the report to the District level. The District then argues that the interrogatory “is far too broad and vague to provide names” (Opp., p. 4:20), because that would require providing names of all teachers from all 73 of the District’s school sites for the academic years 2009-2010 and 2010-2011.

The Court agrees that the interrogatory is somewhat vague and overbroad with respect to the

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 Responses to Special Interrogatories in Department 54

terms “responding to” and “handling.” It is also overbroad in the sense that employees of the District with only a tangential relationship to Mark Twain could be responsible for responding to a complaint of sexual assault that occurred at Mark Twain if that employee received the complaint. Even so, the Court finds a further response is warranted, with the following limitation: the District shall provide the names of all employees at Mark Twain who were mandatory reporters during the relevant time period defined in the interrogatory, including all teachers and administrative staff, as well as any district-level employees during the relevant time period who would receive and address complaints of sexual assault originating from Mark Twain during the same time period.

The Court is not persuaded that it would be unduly burdensome for the District to provide the names of its employees with this limitation, even if that means identifying each teacher at Mark Twain during the relevant time period. For employees still employed with the District, the response may state that the individuals may be contacted through counsel. For employees no longer employed with the District, the response shall provide the last known address for the individual.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED with respect to Special Interrogatory No. 27, subject to the limitation described above.

The District shall serve verified further responses to Special Interrogatory Nos. 5 and 27 by no later than September 15, 2025, or a later date agreed to by the parties in writing.

As noted in the footnote, Plaintiff’s motion is DROPPED as moot as to Special Interrogatory Nos. 13, 15, and 16.

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.)

[1] Plaintiff’s motion also originally sought further response to Special Interrogatory Nos. 13, 15, and 16, but in her

reply, Plaintiff states that the motion is withdrawn as to these interrogatories. Thus, the motion is DROPPED as moot as to Special Interrogatory Nos. 13, 15, and 16.