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 Form 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 Form 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 Form 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 Form 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.

The present motion involves only Form Interrogatory No. 15.1.[1] This interrogatory asks the responding party to identify each denial and affirmative defense and, in subparts, to state all facts upon which the denial or defense is based, identify all persons with knowledge of those facts, and identify all documents that support the denial or defense along with the identity of each person in possession of the documents. The District’s response states, in full:

(a)-(c) Responding party issued a general denial and allegation of affirmative defenses prior to its initiating or completing an investigation into Plaintiffs claims as well as discovery in this case. Therefore, this answer, including its affirmative defenses, is made with the understanding that facts may be developed that support existing defenses or additional defenses yet to be pled. With this in mind, it is responding party’s position that if the incident in Plaintiffs Complaint occurred as alleged therein, then Joshua Vasquez would be the sole responsible party for Plaintiffs harm.

It is SCUSD’s position that if Plaintiff sustained injury while she served the START program in any capacity as a supervisor, aide or volunteer, then her claims would be limited to worker’s compensation exclusive remedy provisions under California law. Last, to the extent that any injury, harm or damage occurred to Plaintiff while she served as a volunteer, aide or supervisor for the afterschool START program, that SCUSD would not be responsible for any ongoing supervision of Plaintiff during that time.

As to individuals or documents supportive of these defenses, responding party has no information with which to respond at this time. Discovery and investigation are continuing.

(Kargman Decl., Exh. 7, p. 11:3-16.)

Plaintiff contends that the District’s response fails to identify any denial or affirmative defense. Plaintiff also argues that the response fails to respond to the subparts of the interrogatory with respect to each denial or affirmative defense. Plaintiff notes that the District’s answer includes a general denial and 22 affirmative defenses.

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 Form Interrogatories in Department 54

The District contends that it responded to No. 15.1 based on the information reasonably available to it at that time and notes that affirmative defenses are typically pled in an abundance of caution. The District further argues that Plaintiff’s complaint “is the only source of information the District had reasonably available to it to formulate its response and the District stated the allegations it relied on to support its general denial and affirmative defenses. It is unclear what Plaintiff seeks further from the District.” (Opp. p. 3:8-11.)

In reply, Plaintiff notes that at the time Plaintiff filed the complaint, the District had been involved in four prior lawsuits involving allegations of childhood sexual assault by Mr. Vasquez, and that “[t]his litigation history means Defendant already has access to a substantial body of relevant facts, witnesses, and documents.” (Reply, p. 2:21-22.)

“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 Court finds the District’s response to be inadequate. The Court acknowledges that the response does provide substantive information that appears to be more pertinent than a formulaic response addressing each affirmative defense would be. Even so, the interrogatory calls for the responding party to identify its denials and affirmative defenses and to provide the information requested in the subparts with respect to each denial or affirmative defense, which the District’s response does not do.

Further, the fact that the response contains the information that it contains, and that it fairly clearly outlines the District’s positions with respect to Plaintiff’s claims, indicates that the District possesses information relative to facts, witnesses, and/or documents related to its positions. For instance, the District’s response asserts that it would not be responsible for ongoing supervision of Plaintiff during the time the alleged assault occurred. This information has to derive from a source, either in the form of a witness or a document.

Thus, a further response is warranted.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED as to Form Interrogatory No. 15.1. The District shall serve a verified further response to Form Interrogatory No. 15.1 by no later than September 15, 2025, or a later date agreed to by the parties in writing.

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 Form Interrogatories in Department 54

As noted in the footnote, Plaintiff’s motion is DROPPED as moot as to Form Interrogatory No. 4.2.

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 Form Interrogatory No. 4.2, but in her reply, Plaintiff

states that the motion is withdrawn as to No. 4.2. Thus, the motion is DROPPED as moot as to Form Interrogatory No. 4.2.