JANE ROE, A MINOR BY AND THROUGH HER GUARDIAN AD LITEM DIANDRA FRIENDS vs SANTA PAULA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

2024CUPP023718: JANE ROE, A MINOR BY AND THROUGH HER GUARDIAN AD LITEM DIANDRA FRIENDS vs SANTA PAULA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 05/26/2026 in Department 42 Motion TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS FROM DEFENDANT SANTA PAULA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

Tentative Ruling as to both Motions: The Court intends to CONTINUE the hearing until June 9, 2026 at 8:20AM so that the parties can engage in meaningful good-faith meet and confer to resolve the issues presented in the Motions. Meet and confer efforts shall take place telephonically, via Zoom or in person; emails alone are insufficient and inadequate. The parties shall file a joint status report regarding the status of the parties’ further meet and confer efforts by no later than June 4, 2026. The report should identify the remaining issues on which the parties are unable to reach agreement, if any.

The Court refers the parties to Code of Civil Procedure section 2016.040, which provides: “A meet and confer declaration in support of a motion shall state facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2016.040.) A party must make “a serious attempt to obtain ‘an informal resolution of each issue.” (Townsend v. Sup. Ct. (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1431, 1435.) “The meet-and-confer rule is designed to encourage the parties to work out their differences informally so as to avoid the necessity for a formal order.” (Sabado v.

Moraga (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 1, 12.) Even where events in the case reveal great animosity between the attorneys and attempts to resolve the issue may be fruitless, the parties must still make the attempt. (Ibid.) The level of effort that constitutes a reasonable and good faith “meet and confer” on a discovery dispute depends on the circumstances of the dispute, including the complexity of the discovery, the history of litigation, and the nature of the interaction between counsel. (Obregon v. Sup.

Ct. (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 424, 431-433.)

Given the nature of the disputes at issue and the history of discovery in this case, including the Court’s prior rulings on substantially similar matters, the Court is confident the parties can reach some resolution on their own if acting in good-faith. There seems to be some miscommunication about the FERPA procedure and who was actually notified, as well as some deviation from the Court’s prior orders. The issue of sanctions is reserved.