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 06/09/2026 in Department 42 Motion TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS FROM DEFENDANT SANTA PAULA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

Braff’s Personnel File

Based on the Joint Status Report that was filed, the Motion to Compel Compliance with Deposition Subpoena for production of Business Records issued to Santa Paula Unified School District regarding redactions to David Braff’s Personnel File MOOT. As Plaintiff has withdrawn the motion.

SPUSDs Business Records

As to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Compliance with Deposition Subpoena for Production of Business Records from Santa Paula Unified School District, the motion is GRANTED for the following reasons:

First, as for the redaction of other student names in the documents recording their “me too” complaints against David Braff, the motion is granted as follows:

The parties’ stipulation signed by the Court on November 1, 2026, outlined a FERPA-compliant notice process and stated that the “Court has Ordered that the contract information of minor students who complained about Mr. Braff is discoverable” and that the information may be produced subject to a protective order after notice and opportunity to object is provided to minor’s guardians.

Moving on from there, Defendant’s Opposition correctly contends that the Stipulation and Order did not provide FERPA notice to those students who may only be mentioned in the documents / records but who did not complain about Braff; i.e., notice was only sent to those students who complained. Defendant therefore argues that those names (those who did not complain), should be redacted from production. But are there any such students? Defendant contends Plaintiff has not shown that notice was provided to all third parties reflected in the records it now seeks, but how would Plaintiff be able to provide notice to unknown parties? That was the point of the FERPA notice agreed upon by the parties.

As to relevance, the only names that might possibly be subject to redaction still are the names of any students who did not complain about Braff and therefore did not yet receive FERPA notice (to the extent there are any; it may be that all students in the reports have already been properly notified and filed no objection). It appears that no purpose would be served by allowing redaction of names of individuals who made no complaint(s), where the students’ parents/guardians offered no opposition or objection to disclosure. The single objecting student

2024CUPP023718: JANE ROE, A MINOR BY AND THROUGH HER GUARDIAN AD LITEM DIANDRA FRIENDS vs SANTA PAULA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

should have their identity protected, as Plaintiff acknowledges that it does not seek their contract information.

Next, as for the SCARs sent to CPS, given the notice process conducted ameliorating privacy concerns, Defendant’s objections were unsupported. Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Act provides that SCARs may be disclosed to people or agencies to whom disclosure of the identity of the reporting person is permitted under section 11167. (Pen. Code, § 11167.5, subd. (b)(1).) That statute allows the production of confidential SCARs “by court order.” (Pen. Code, § 11167, subds. (d)(1) & (d)(2).) Defendant has failed to show that this court cannot issue such an order.

As the objecting party, it was Defendant’s burden to justify its objection, which requires showing that the court order exception does not apply. The information is relevant, good cause has been shown, and no privilege has been established. What the District knew about Braff and when it knew it, as reflected in its reports on the matter, and in response, are clearly directly relevant to Plaintiff’s claims. Subject to the protective order in place, the documents are to be produced.

Finally, none of the objections to the CRC reports have been justified or supported. There is no showing that attorney-client privilege or work-product applies, and the bare fact that counsel may have assisted in gathering facts used in the report does not shield production.

No sanctions are awarded.

2