Matthew Strother v. Fontana Unified School District

TENTATIVE RULING September 09, 2026 Department 35– Michael A. Dauber Tentative Rulings for Department S37, if posted, are on court’s website (https://www.sbcourt.org/divisions/civil/civil-tentative-rulings) by 3:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing (in some cases, on a non-court day before the hearing). If no tentative ruling is posted by 3:00 p.m., please check again after 7:00 p.m.

Unless you wish to submit on the tentative ruling, you must appear for the hearing either in person, CourtCall (888-882-6878 or www.courtcall.com), or by ZOOM. Failure to appear is deemed a waiver of oral argument. If you wish to submit to the tentative, please call the Judicial Assistant at (909) 708-8707 in advance of the hearing. If all parties submit on a tentative ruling, the tentative ruling will become final. The tentative ruling may seek input on particular issues and direct appearance. If so directed, attendance at the hearing is mandatory. The party prevailing on a motion or other hearing shall serve written notice of the court’s ruling unless all parties waive notice of the ruling.

ATTENTION: Since January 9, 2023, the court no longer provides an official Court Reporter to transcribe proceedings. Parties who wish to have a transcript must retain their own private reporter and must submit a “Stipulation and Order to Use Certified Shorthand Reporter.” Please contact the Department if you need this form. Prior to the hearing, you can email the completed Stipulation to Department S37 at AGear@sb-court.org. Parties who do not retain their own reporter have waived the right to one.

UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, THE PREVAILING PARTY IS TO GIVE NOTICE OF THE RULING. ____________________________________________________________________________ CASE NUMBER: CIVSB 2431079 Matthew Strother v. Fontana Unified School District

Motion: Comple Further re: Deposition Document Demands Movant: Plaintiff Matthew Strother Respondent: Defendant Fontana Unified School District ____________________ ________________________________________________________

Background

This is a retaliation litigation. On October 14, 2024, Plaintiff Matthew Strother filed his

Complaint against Defendant Fontana Unified School District (District). The Complaint pleads

2 causes of action: (1) retaliation (Lab. Code, §1102.5), and (2) retaliation (Lab. Code, §6310).

Defendant District answered. Plaintiff Strother deposed Defendant District’s Person Most

Knowledgeable (PMK). The Second Amended Deposition Notice demanded production of

documents, which the District objected to. (Fund Decl. at ¶¶4-5, Exh. B.) At issue are three

document demands. The parties met and conferred on the matter. (Fund Suppl. Decl. at ¶¶3-7.)

Law

If a deponent fails to answer any question or produce documents noted in the deposition

notice, the party seeking such discovery can move for an order compelling the deponent to

answer proposed questions and produce the requested documents. (Code Civ. Proc., §2025.480,

subd. (a).) Said motion to compel must be made no later than 60 days after the completion of the

deposition record and shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under section

2016.040. (Code Civ. Proc., §2025.480, subd. (b).) Notice of the motion shall be given to all the

parties and the deponent either orally at the examination or by subsequent service in writing.

(Code Civ. Proc., §2025.480, subd. (c).) Sanctions shall be imposed against the person, party, or

attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a compel further motion unless the court finds

that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or other circumstances

make the imposition of the sanctions unjust. (Code Civ. Proc., §2025.480, subd. (j).)

Analysis

Demand # 3

Document demand #3 asked for all documents reflecting any actions taken in response to

Plaintiff’s complaint relating to Orahim. Defendant objected on privacy, attorney-client

communication, and attorney work product. Despite the objections, during the PMK’s

deposition, Barnes testified that all responsive documents had been provided previously, and, in

particular, all documents reflecting Plaintiff’s Complaint concerning Orahim. (Barnes Depo. at

15:6-10 and 17:14-18:1 [Exh. C to Fund Decl. and Exh. A to Cohen Decl.].) This is not a

motion to compel further responses under Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310. The issue

is whether the documents were produced in relation to the PMK’s deposition. Per the deposition,

it was made clear that despite the objection, the responsive documents to demand #3 had been

previously produced. PMK Barnes, in her declaration in support of the Opposition, reiterates

that the only complaints about Orahim were from Plaintiff that led to investigation by the District

police and outside law firm. Those records have been produced. (Barnes Decl. at ¶2.) Finally,

the deposition transcripts produced demonstrate Plaintiff was able to make appropriate inquiries

on the documents. (Barnes Depo. at 46:14-51:4 [Exh. A to Cohen Decl.].)

The Court DENIES compelling further response to Deposition Document Demand # 3.

Demands # 4 and #5

These asked for all documents reflecting any complaints and any discipline imposed

relating to Orahim. Defendant objected to both because they are overbroad, seek irrelevant

information, and invade Orahim’s privacy interest.

With the Opposition, District confirms no records exist. (Barnes Decl. at ¶¶2-3.)

However, that fact is not shown existing within Barnes’ deposition. Nonetheless, as phrased,

Defendant is correct that the demands are overbroad. The Demands are not limited to the

relevant period involved in this litigation. They seek any type of complaint made against

Orahim. This litigation concerns matters of Orahim engaging in unsafe and threatening

behavior. Plaintiff fails to demand content-specific and relevant period records. But even if the

demands were revised to identify relevant periods and topics, the District has indicated no

documents exist of any complaints or investigations in Orahim’s file other than those produced

related to Strother’s complaints and investigations to those complaints. This is not a motion to

compel further responses to a document demand that would warrant that a written response

because after diligent search, no documents exist so obviously nothing can be provided.

The Court DENIES compelling further response to Deposition Document Demands # 4 and #5.

Sanctions

Defendant District asked for sanctions against Plaintiff’s Counsel. The request was made

on a lack of meeting and conferring. Counsel failed to provide factual support for meet and

confer efforts. But the supplemental declarations filed on May 5, 2026, and August 18, 2026,

indicate efforts were made to resolve the matter soon after the objections were served. Thus,

sanctions are not justified.

///

///

____________________________________

Michael A. Dauber Judge San Bernardino Superior Court

4