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 Production of Documents 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 Production of Documents 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 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 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 Production of Documents 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.

A party served with a request for production of documents shall respond with a statement of compliance, a representation of inability to comply, or an objection. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.210(a).) A statement of compliance must state that the production “will be allowed either in whole or in part, and that all documents or things in the demanded category that are in the possession, custody, or control of that party and to which no objection is being made will be included in the production.” (Code Civ.

Proc. § 2031.220.) A representation of inability to comply “shall affirm that a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry has been made in an effort to comply with that demand,” and must also specify the reason for the inability to comply. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.230.) If an objection is asserted, the responding party must identify with particularity any document to which an objection is being made and must clearly set forth the extent of and specific ground for the objection. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.240(b).)

A party may move to compel further responses to requests for production of documents on the grounds that a statement of compliance is incomplete, a representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive, or that an objection is without merit or too general. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.310(a).) The moving party must “set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.310(b)(1).) Where there is no issue of privilege of attorney work product, good cause may be shown “simply by a factspecific showing of relevance.” (Glenfed Dev. Corp. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1117.)

The present motion involves several requests, many of which can be grouped into categories. The Court discusses each category below.

Vasquez’s Employment Documents (RFPD Nos. 8-11, 13, and 20)

These requests seek document related to Vasquez’s employment with the District, including his personnel file, performance reviews and evaluations, and documents related to any disciplinary action taken by the District against Vasquez. Plaintiff also seeks documents related 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 Production of Documents in Department 54

District’s hiring of Vasquez, such as background checks, applications, resumes, and similar items. In its responses to these requests, the District objected based on Vasquez’s privacy rights and stated that it would produce some of the requested documents only upon authorization from Vasquez or a court order. The District also asserted objections based on attorney-client privilege and work product, as well as objections on the ground that the requests seek records from after Plaintiff was no longer a student with the District. Thus, the District further qualified several of its responses by stating that, if authorized by Vasquez or a court order, it would only produce records encompassing the time during which Plaintiff was a student in the District.

Plaintiff contends that the requested documents are highly relevant to her claims and argues that they relate to “(1) whether District personnel knew or should have known about perpetrator’s inappropriate behavior and predilection for childhood sexual assault; (2) whether the District was negligent in hiring him; (3) whether District personnel knew or suspected perpetrator had sexually assaulted Plaintiff; (4) whether the District investigated perpetrator’s misconduct; and (5) whether the District adequately supervised perpetrator.” (Mot. MPA, p. 8:5-10.) Plaintiff further argues that the District cannot meet its burden to establish that Vasquez’s privacy interests override disclosure because such interests can be accommodated through a protective order, which was entered in this case in January of 2025.

On the privacy issue, the District contends that Plaintiff is required to show a compelling need to justify production of Vasquez’s employment documents, and thus argues that Plaintiff has failed to meet this standard. The District further contends that if the Court is inclined to order production of these records, the scope of the required production should be limited to protect Vasquez’s privacy.

A person’s employment records are protected by the constitutional right of privacy. (Hooser v. Superior Court (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 997, overruled in part on other grounds by Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 557, fn. 8.) This privacy interest applies to public employees. (BRV, Inc. v. Superior Court (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 742, 756.)

While employee personnel records are subject to the right to privacy, the District misconstrues the applicable test for determining whether such documents should be produced. A party seeking disclosure of private information need only establish a compelling need when the privacy interest involves “‘an obvious invasion of an interest fundamental to personal autonomy.’” (Williams, supra, 3 Cal.5th at p. 556.) Where lesser privacy interests are involved, a balancing test is applied, “with the strength of the countervailing interest sufficient to warrant disclosure of private information varying according to the strength of the privacy interest itself, the seriousness of the invasion, and the availability of protective measures.” (Ibid.) The burden is on the party

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 Production of Documents in Department 54

asserting a privacy interest “to establish its extent and the seriousness of the prospective invasion, and against that showing [the trial court] must weigh the countervailing interests the opposing party identifies.” (Id. at p. 557.)

Here, the District assumes that a compelling need is required, but the District has not established that disclosure of Vasquez’s personnel records involves an obvious invasion of an interest fundamental to Vasquez’s personal autonomy. Thus, the balancing test applies. Upon applying the balancing test, the Court finds that the requested records are discoverable in this case. It is clear that the documents are relevant to Plaintiff’s claims, as Plaintiff’s primary theory of liability against the District is based on a negligent hiring and supervision claim. While the documents likely also include private information that has little to no relevance to Plaintiff’s claims, this private information can be protected through the protective order entered in this case.

As to the District’s objections that the requests are overbroad and seek irrelevant documents from after Plaintiff graduated, the District fails to justify this objection in its opposition. Moreover, the Court sees no reason why the timeframe should be limited in such a manner.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED as to RFPD Nos. 8-11, 13, and 20.

Photos of Vasquez (RFPD No. 15)

This request seeks all school or staff photos of Vasquez. The District responded by objecting that the request is vague and ambiguous. The District then construed the request as seeking photos of Vasquez taken during the course and scope of his employment and/or while he was on campus at Mark Twain from 2007 to 2010. With this limitation, the District stated that it was unable to comply with the request despite having conducted a diligent search and reasonable inquiry because it was unable to locate responsive documents.

The Court agrees with Plaintiff that the District’s limitation from 2007 to 2010 is improper. Additionally, the District does not appear to address this request in its opposition. To the extent the District intended to include it in its discussion of Vasquez’s employment records, the arguments against disclosure are rejected for the same reasons discussed above.

Thus, Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED as to RFPD No.

15.

Staff and Student Directories (RFPD Nos. 25 and 26)

In these requests, Plaintiff seeks the staff and student directories for Mark Twain for 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 Production of Documents in Department 54

academic years 2006-2007 through 2015-2016. The District objected to the request for staff directories on the bases of third-party privacy and relevance and did not provide any further response. The District objected to the request for student directories based on overbreadth and undue burden, as well as privacy rights of the students, citing Education Code section 49075 and the federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act. The District then stated it was unable to comply with the request and instead produced Board Policy 5125.1 and Administrative Regulation 16 5125.1.

Plaintiff contends that the documents are relevant because they contain names of potential witnesses to Vasquez’s conduct and the District’s implementation of policies and procedures related to sexual assault. Plaintiff also contends that the District has not met its burden to show the requested records are protected from disclosure.

In opposition, the District contends that it produced staff directories for the 2009-2010 and 2010- 2011 school years, and that staff directories for additional school years are not relevant. As for student directories, the District contends that Plaintiff has not shown she is entitled to information for thousands of students spanning several years before and after the alleged abuse. The District also notes that it maintains a policy that precludes production of student directories absent a court order.

The Court finds that Plaintiff is entitled to the staff directories during the timeframe that Vasquez was an employee of the District, which Plaintiff alleges was 2007 to at least 2015. Individuals who worked with Vasquez at Mark Twain are potential witnesses to events and information relevant to Plaintiff’s claims. The “disclosure of the names and addresses of potential witnesses is a routine and essential part of pretrial discovery.” (Puerto v. Superior Court (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1242, 1250.) “Indeed, it is only under unusual circumstances that the courts restrict discovery of nonparty witnesses’ residential contact information.

Discovery may be prohibited where the information violates the right to privacy and is not necessary to the prosecution of the matter.” (Id. at p. 1254.) Generally, discovery of a witness’s identity and contact information “is neither personal nor overly intrusive” to the witness. (Ibid.) The Court sees no concern over the disclosure of the requested staff directories. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED as to RFPD No.

25.

Regarding the student directories, directory information is specifically defined under the Education Codes as to include a “pupil’s name, address, telephone number, date of birth, email address” and other information. (Ed. Code § 49061(c).) This information is distinct from a “pupil record,” which is separately defined and expressly excludes directory information. (See Ed. Code § 49061(b).) The Education Code requires a school district to maintain a policy for the release of

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 Production of Documents in Department 54

directory information. (See Ed. Code § 49073.) Under Education Code section 49077(a), “[i]nformation concerning a pupil shall be furnished in compliance with a court order or a lawfully issued subpoena.” (Ed. Code § 49077(a).) This statute obligates the school district to “make a reasonable effort to notify the pupil’s parent or legal guardian and the pupil in advance if lawfully possible within the requirements of the order.” (Ibid.) The phrase “information concerning a pupil” is not defined, but the Court assumes it includes both pupil records and directory information.

Based on this statutory scheme, it is apparent that student records, including directories, involve more sensitive information that staff directories. Thus, the Court is not persuaded that good cause exists for the production of student directories for the entire school. However, good cause appears to exist for the production of directory information for students that may have regularly interacted with Vasquez. It is unclear whether, and if so, how, it could be determined whether a student interacted with Vasquez. Indeed, based on the record before the Court, Vasquez’s specific involvement with the school is not clear, as the Court cannot discern whether Vasquez was a teacher at Mark Twain or only involved with the START program. Given this uncertainty, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED as to RFPD No. 26, without prejudice to Plaintiff serving more narrowly tailored discovery requests.

Prior Litigation Documents (RFPD Nos. 34 and 37-54.)

RFPD No. 34 seeks all documents relating to Vasquez committing childhood sexual assault on minors at Mark Twain. The District objected on various grounds, including Vasquez’s privacy, the privacy of current and former pupils, and overbreadth. RFPD No. 37 seeks documents related to criminal proceedings against Vasquez, to which the District objected on the grounds that the documents are equally available to Plaintiff and that the request violates the attorney-client privilege and attorney work product doctrine.

RFPD No. 38 seeks documents related to claims, lawsuits, and legal proceedings involving Vasquez in which the District was a party. The District objected on various grounds, including equally available, privacy of third parties, overbreadth, and attorney-client privilege/attorney work product. RFPD Nos. 39 through 54 seek pleadings and other documents from four specific lawsuits against the District involving allegations of childhood sexual assault by Vasquez filed in Sacramento County.

Plaintiff contends that the District’s equally available objection does not apply to document requests and further contends that many of the documents sought are not equally available to Plaintiff. Regarding third-party privacy, Plaintiff reiterates its prior arguments on this issue. Plaintiff also avers that she is not seeking privileged or work product documents, but only pleadings and discovery documents, which Plaintiff contends are clearly relevant to her claims.

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 Production of Documents in Department 54

The District argues that the litigation files from the four cases cited in RFPD Nos. 39 through 54 are not relevant because they involve conduct by Vasquez from 2014 and 2015, while Plaintiff alleges she was abused in 2011. The District also contends that the requests seek broad categories of documents that include private and sensitive information, including the medical records of the plaintiffs in the prior cases.

The Court finds that good cause exists for the production of all pleadings and other publicly available documents encompassed within the requests. The District’s objection that the documents are equally available to Plaintiff is not a valid objection to requests for production of documents, and it is also inaccurate. The District possesses the documents now. Plaintiff would have to obtain them from the Court. (See City of Alhambra v. Superior Court (1980) 110 Cal.App.3d 513, 521 [“Although the public records are equally accessible to both sides, petitioners’ own records of such lawsuits are undoubtedly more easily accessible to it than are the public records.”].)

Moreover, the prior lawsuits against the District related to other incidents of childhood sexual abuse by Vasquez are clearly relevant to Plaintiff’s claims, notwithstanding the fact that the abuse occurred after the abuse alleged in this case.

Regarding the remaining categories of documents, which include deposition transcripts, discovery responses, and documents produced in discovery, the Court agrees with the District that the requests are somewhat broad and that there is a risk of disclosure of highly personal, irrelevant information, such as the plaintiffs’ medical records. However, the District’s response does not identify any documents at all as required, and the burden is on the District to establish the privacy interest involved. The District has not met that burden here, as no specific documents are identified. That said, the Court is not inclined to order the District to produce the medical records and other sensitive information of sexual assault victims who are not parties to this case.

Thus, Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED as to these requests, with the following limitation. The District is ordered to provide further responses that identify documents or categories of documents that are being withheld on the basis of third-party privacy. This obviously does not apply to publicly filed documents, which should be produced. Nor would it seem to apply to deposition transcripts, discovery responses, or most documents produced in discovery other than medical records and other documents related to the plaintiffs’ emotional damages, at least in support of a blanket refusal to disclose.

The Court is not persuaded that the plaintiffs’ recounting of the abuse they suffered is necessarily protected from disclosure, particularly if no protective order was entered in any of the prior cases. Notably, the District does not indicate that protective orders were in place in any of the prior cases.

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 Production of Documents in Department 54

Conclusion

Pursuant to the above discussion, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED as to RFPD No. 26 and is GRANTED as to the remaining requests. The District shall serve verified further responses to the remaining requests 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.)