1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 A.S., Case No. 2:23-cv-2029-TLN-CSK 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL VACAVILLE UNIFIED SCHOOL 14 POINT QUEST, VACAVILLE UNIFIED DISTRICT SCHOOL DISTRICT, ANASTASIA 15 BOOMER, and HANNAH SMITH, (ECF No. 74) 16 Defendants. 17 18 Plaintiff A.S., a minor, by and through her Guardian ad Litem SHAWN 19 SPRINGER, has filed a motion to compel Defendant VACAVILLE UNIFIED SCHOOL 20 DISTRICT (“VUSD”) to produce documents in response to Plaintiff’s Requests for 21 Production (“RFP”) Set One, Nos. 7-17. (ECF No. 77.) A hearing was held on June 3, 22 2025, at which counsel Valerie Rose appeared for Plaintiff and counsel Kristen Caprino 23 appeared for VUSD. The Court ruled from the bench, GRANTING IN PART and 24 DENYING IN PART Plaintiff’s motion to compel. The Court summarizes its ruling in this 25 written order. 26 I. LEGAL STANDARDS 27 “Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant 28 to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case[.]” Fed. R. Civ. 1 P. 26(b)(1). Proportionality turns on “the importance of the issues at stake in the action, 2 the amount in controversy, the parties' relative access to relevant information, the 3 parties' resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether 4 the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.” Id. 5 “[B]road discretion is vested in the trial court to permit or deny discovery....” Hallett v. 6 Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002). 7 Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party must produce relevant, non- 8 privileged documents in its “possession, custody, or control.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a)(1). If a 9 responding party objects, the objection “must state whether any responsive materials are 10 being withheld on the basis of that objection[, and] an objection to part of a request must 11 specify the part and permit inspection of the rest.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(C). 12 II. ORDER 13 The Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Plaintiff’s motion to compel 14 (ECF No. 74) as follows: 15 A. Verified Responses 16 Plaintiff’s request for verified responses to its RFPs is denied. Rule 33, which 17 governs requests for documents, does not include a verification, unlike Rule 34, which 18 governs interrogatories. Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 34. 19 B. E-mails 20 To the extent VUSD has e-mails that are responsive to RFP Nos. 7-17, VUSD 21 must produce those e-mails and any associated attachments in native format unless the 22 e-mail requires redaction (e.g., redaction of non-party minor names). Any e-mails that 23 require redaction may be produced in PDF format, as those emails cannot be produced 24 in native format. 25 C. RFP No. 7 26 The Court DENIES the motion to compel as to RFP No. 7. At the hearing, VUSD 27 confirmed that it has produced all responsive documents and that it is not withholding 28 documents based on its stated objections. At the hearing, Plaintiff confirmed that it had 1 no evidence to suggest that VUSD had responsive documents that it was not producing. 2 D. RFP Nos. 8 and 9 3 The Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the motion to compel as to 4 RFP Nos. 8 and 9. VUSD has responded that it has produced all responsive documents 5 to both RFPs. VUSD offered to supplement its RFP responses to RFP Nos. 8 and 9 to 6 confirm that no documents are being withheld on the basis of VUSD’s objections. VUSD 7 is ordered to supplement its response to RFP Nos. 8 and 9 with this confirmation. 8 E. RFP No. 10 9 The Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the motion to compel as to 10 RFP No. 10. The RFP, as currently drafted, is overbroad and not proportional to the 11 needs of the case. The Court previously addressed Behavior Emergency Reports 12 (“BERs”) in prior discovery motions brought by Defendant Point Quest related to 13 Plaintiff’s RFPs to Point Quest, and will follow a similar approach to ensure consistency 14 and fairness. (See ECF Nos. 47, 54, 60, 62.) 15 VUSD is ordered to produce BERs from August 2020 to 2022 that were 16 completed by Point Quest staff who worked with Plaintiff during the 2021-2022 school 17 year relating to VUSD students (the names of non-party minors may be redacted to 18 initials) who were classmates of Plaintiff from August 2020 to 2022. 19 Plaintiff must amend RFP No. 10 following the limitations set forth above. 20 F. RFP No. 11 21 The Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the motion to compel as to 22 RFP No. 11. The RFP, as currently drafted, is overbroad and not proportional to the 23 needs of the case. 24 VUSD is ordered to produce all writings from August 2020 to 2022 related to 25 restraint of VUSD students (the names of non-party minors may be redacted to initials) 26 by PQE staff for the Depot Park campus for the following custodians: Defendant 27 Anastasia Boomer, Erin Schroeder, Aumrey Moland, Michael Kitzes, and Kara Cooper. 28 Among the nineteen (19) custodians requested in the Joint Discovery Statement, Plaintiff 1 identified these five (5) custodians at the hearing to narrow RFP No. 11. VUSD will use 2 the following search terms: “restrain!” AND “PQE” or “Point Quest” or “PQ” or “quest” or 3 “depot park” or “Hannah” or “Hannah Smith” or 22-132327 or 22-24288 or 22-22519. At 4 the hearing, Plaintiff confirmed that the numbers 22-132327, or 22-24288 or 22-22519 5 refer to the report numbers for Sacramento Police Department records related to 6 Plaintiff. The Court orders VUSD to produce responsive documents, noting VUSD’s 7 concern that certain responsive documents may fall under California Penal Code 8 § 11167.5. The Court further notes that given that Plaintiff has already received the 9 Sacramento Police Department reports, it appears unlikely that VUSD’s writings referring 10 to these reports actually fall under § 11167.5. 11 Plaintiff must amend RFP No. 11 following the limitations set forth above. 12 To the extent VUSD determines that an e-mail responsive to RFP No. 11 (as 13 modified by the Court’s order) requires notification to the parent or guardian, VUSD will 14 provide the attached notice to the parent or guardian, which was agreed upon at the 15 hearing. See Att. A. At the hearing, Plaintiff and VUSD agreed that California Education 16 Code, see Cal. Educ. Code § 49077, does not require providing a parent or guardian 17 with the opportunity to object to disclosure. 18 G. RFP No. 12 19 At the hearing, Plaintiff and VUSD confirmed that only e-mails remained at issue 20 for RFP No. 12. 21 The Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the motion to compel as to 22 RFP No. 12. At the hearing, Plaintiff agreed to VUSD’s proposal that the time period for 23 e-mails be limited to 2019 to September 2023. VUSD is ordered to search for responsive 24 e-mails using various combinations of Plaintiff’s name, and if a student identification 25 number is used for Plaintiff, Plaintiff’s student identification number, and to provide 26 Plaintiff with the list of search terms used. VUSD is not required to search for only 27 Plaintiff’s first name or only Plaintiff’s last name. 28 Plaintiff must amend RFP No. 12 to add the time period limitation. 1 H. RFP Nos.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 A.S., Case No. 2:23-cv-2029-TLN-CSK 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL VACAVILLE UNIFIED SCHOOL 14 POINT QUEST, VACAVILLE UNIFIED DISTRICT SCHOOL DISTRICT, ANASTASIA 15 BOOMER, and HANNAH SMITH, (ECF No. 74) 16 Defendants. 17 18 Plaintiff A.S., a minor, by and through her Guardian ad Litem SHAWN 19 SPRINGER, has filed a motion to compel Defendant VACAVILLE UNIFIED SCHOOL 20 DISTRICT (“VUSD”) to produce documents in response to Plaintiff’s Requests for 21 Production (“RFP”) Set One, Nos. 7-17. (ECF No. 77.) A hearing was held on June 3, 22 2025, at which counsel Valerie Rose appeared for Plaintiff and counsel Kristen Caprino 23 appeared for VUSD. The Court ruled from the bench, GRANTING IN PART and 24 DENYING IN PART Plaintiff’s motion to compel. The Court summarizes its ruling in this 25 written order. 26 I. LEGAL STANDARDS 27 “Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant 28 to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case[.]” Fed. R. Civ. 1 P. 26(b)(1). Proportionality turns on “the importance of the issues at stake in the action, 2 the amount in controversy, the parties' relative access to relevant information, the 3 parties' resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether 4 the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.” Id. 5 “[B]road discretion is vested in the trial court to permit or deny discovery....” Hallett v. 6 Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002). 7 Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party must produce relevant, non- 8 privileged documents in its “possession, custody, or control.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a)(1). If a 9 responding party objects, the objection “must state whether any responsive materials are 10 being withheld on the basis of that objection[, and] an objection to part of a request must 11 specify the part and permit inspection of the rest.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(C). 12 II. ORDER 13 The Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Plaintiff’s motion to compel 14 (ECF No. 74) as follows: 15 A. Verified Responses 16 Plaintiff’s request for verified responses to its RFPs is denied. Rule 33, which 17 governs requests for documents, does not include a verification, unlike Rule 34, which 18 governs interrogatories. Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 34. 19 B. E-mails 20 To the extent VUSD has e-mails that are responsive to RFP Nos. 7-17, VUSD 21 must produce those e-mails and any associated attachments in native format unless the 22 e-mail requires redaction (e.g., redaction of non-party minor names). Any e-mails that 23 require redaction may be produced in PDF format, as those emails cannot be produced 24 in native format. 25 C. RFP No. 7 26 The Court DENIES the motion to compel as to RFP No. 7. At the hearing, VUSD 27 confirmed that it has produced all responsive documents and that it is not withholding 28 documents based on its stated objections. At the hearing, Plaintiff confirmed that it had 1 no evidence to suggest that VUSD had responsive documents that it was not producing. 2 D. RFP Nos. 8 and 9 3 The Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the motion to compel as to 4 RFP Nos. 8 and 9. VUSD has responded that it has produced all responsive documents 5 to both RFPs. VUSD offered to supplement its RFP responses to RFP Nos. 8 and 9 to 6 confirm that no documents are being withheld on the basis of VUSD’s objections. VUSD 7 is ordered to supplement its response to RFP Nos. 8 and 9 with this confirmation. 8 E. RFP No. 10 9 The Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the motion to compel as to 10 RFP No. 10. The RFP, as currently drafted, is overbroad and not proportional to the 11 needs of the case. The Court previously addressed Behavior Emergency Reports 12 (“BERs”) in prior discovery motions brought by Defendant Point Quest related to 13 Plaintiff’s RFPs to Point Quest, and will follow a similar approach to ensure consistency 14 and fairness. (See ECF Nos. 47, 54, 60, 62.) 15 VUSD is ordered to produce BERs from August 2020 to 2022 that were 16 completed by Point Quest staff who worked with Plaintiff during the 2021-2022 school 17 year relating to VUSD students (the names of non-party minors may be redacted to 18 initials) who were classmates of Plaintiff from August 2020 to 2022. 19 Plaintiff must amend RFP No. 10 following the limitations set forth above. 20 F. RFP No. 11 21 The Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the motion to compel as to 22 RFP No. 11. The RFP, as currently drafted, is overbroad and not proportional to the 23 needs of the case. 24 VUSD is ordered to produce all writings from August 2020 to 2022 related to 25 restraint of VUSD students (the names of non-party minors may be redacted to initials) 26 by PQE staff for the Depot Park campus for the following custodians: Defendant 27 Anastasia Boomer, Erin Schroeder, Aumrey Moland, Michael Kitzes, and Kara Cooper. 28 Among the nineteen (19) custodians requested in the Joint Discovery Statement, Plaintiff 1 identified these five (5) custodians at the hearing to narrow RFP No. 11. VUSD will use 2 the following search terms: “restrain!” AND “PQE” or “Point Quest” or “PQ” or “quest” or 3 “depot park” or “Hannah” or “Hannah Smith” or 22-132327 or 22-24288 or 22-22519. At 4 the hearing, Plaintiff confirmed that the numbers 22-132327, or 22-24288 or 22-22519 5 refer to the report numbers for Sacramento Police Department records related to 6 Plaintiff. The Court orders VUSD to produce responsive documents, noting VUSD’s 7 concern that certain responsive documents may fall under California Penal Code 8 § 11167.5. The Court further notes that given that Plaintiff has already received the 9 Sacramento Police Department reports, it appears unlikely that VUSD’s writings referring 10 to these reports actually fall under § 11167.5. 11 Plaintiff must amend RFP No. 11 following the limitations set forth above. 12 To the extent VUSD determines that an e-mail responsive to RFP No. 11 (as 13 modified by the Court’s order) requires notification to the parent or guardian, VUSD will 14 provide the attached notice to the parent or guardian, which was agreed upon at the 15 hearing. See Att. A. At the hearing, Plaintiff and VUSD agreed that California Education 16 Code, see Cal. Educ. Code § 49077, does not require providing a parent or guardian 17 with the opportunity to object to disclosure. 18 G. RFP No. 12 19 At the hearing, Plaintiff and VUSD confirmed that only e-mails remained at issue 20 for RFP No. 12. 21 The Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the motion to compel as to 22 RFP No. 12. At the hearing, Plaintiff agreed to VUSD’s proposal that the time period for 23 e-mails be limited to 2019 to September 2023. VUSD is ordered to search for responsive 24 e-mails using various combinations of Plaintiff’s name, and if a student identification 25 number is used for Plaintiff, Plaintiff’s student identification number, and to provide 26 Plaintiff with the list of search terms used. VUSD is not required to search for only 27 Plaintiff’s first name or only Plaintiff’s last name. 28 Plaintiff must amend RFP No. 12 to add the time period limitation. 1 H. RFP Nos. 13 and 14 2 The Court DENIES the motion to compel as to RFP Nos. 13 and 14. At the 3 hearing, VUSD confirmed that it has produced all responsive documents and that it is not 4 withholding documents based on its stated objections. At the hearing, Plaintiff confirmed 5 that it had no evidence to suggest that VUSD had responsive documents that it was not 6 producing. 7 I. RFP Nos. 15, 16, and 17 8 The Court DENIES the motion to compel as to RFP Nos. 15, 16, and 17. At the 9 hearing, VUSD confirmed that besides the underlying action involving Plaintiff, it does 10 not have responsive documents for RFP Nos. 15, 16, and 17. At the hearing, Plaintiff 11 confirmed that it had no evidence to suggest that VUSD had responsive documents that 12 it was not producing. 13 J. VUSD’s Responses to Plaintiff’s RFPs, Set One 14 VUSD’s Responses to Plaintiff’s RFPs, Set One, currently consist of its original 15 responses dated January 17, 2024; its Supplemental Responses to certain RFPs dated 16 June 21, 2024; and its Second Supplemental Responses to certain RFPs dated March 17 6, 2025. In addition to the orders above regarding specific supplemental responses, 18 VUSD is ordered to consolidate its RFP responses in one document to include all of its 19 responses in an organized fashion. 20 K. Privilege Log 21 To the extent that VUSD produces any redacted documents that make redactions 22 other than the non-party minor’s name, which Plaintiff proposed in her RFPs, VUSD 23 must identify these redactions in a privilege log. 24 Based on the Joint Discovery Statement and hearing, it does not appear that 25 VUSD has or will be withholding any documents on the basis of privilege. In an 26 abundance of caution, however, to the extent that VUSD withholds any documents on 27 the basis of privilege, VUSD must also identify these documents in a privilege log. 28 Any privilege log must be produced simultaneously with VUSD’s production of 1 | documents and supplemental responses. 2 L. Schedule 3 Plaintiff must amend its RFP Nos. 10, 11, and 12 by close of business Friday, 4 | June 6, 2025. 5 Defendant VUSD must serve its supplemental responses and responsive 6 || documents as ordered above within fourteen (14) days of today, June 3, 2025. 7 The parties must file a Joint Discovery Update within twenty-one (21) days of 8 | today, June 3, 2025, providing an update on their compliance with this Order. The Joint 9 | Discovery Update is limited to five (5) pages. 10 The Court expressly reminded and warned the parties that the discovery 11 | deadlines in this case have a strict definition of the term “completed.” (See ECF No. 15.) 12 | The Court further warned the parties that it is NOT inclined to extend discovery 13 | deadlines given the parties have had more than ample time for fact discovery at over two 14 || (2) years, and it was imperative that both sides work together cooperatively to resolve 15 | any potential discovery disputes. 16 17 | Dated: June 3, 2025 C i s 18 CHI SOO KIM 49 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28