C.R. v. Elk Grove Unified School District

District Court, E.D. California·Decided July 14, 2025·No. 2:20-cv-02296·Unknown

Opinion

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10 Jor. by and through her Guardian ad Litem | No. 2:20-cv-02296-KJM-AC Tiffany Roe, 11 FINAL PRETRIAL ORDER Plaintiff, 12 Vv. 13 | Elk Grove United School District, et al., Defendants. 14

15 On July 1, 2025, the court conducted a final pretrial conference. Sean A. Commons 16 | appeared for plaintiff C.R. Cynthia Lawrence and Blaze Van Dine appeared for defendants 17 | Capitol Elementary School (CES) and Ira Ross. Richard Linkert and Madison Simmons appeared 18 | for defendants Elk Grove United School District (EGUSD) and Marilyn Delgado. After hearing, 19 | and good cause appearing, the court makes the following findings and orders: 20 | JURISDICTION AND VENUE 21 Jurisdiction is predicated on 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 28 U.S.C. § 1343(a)(3). The court has 22 | supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff's state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

1 Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1) because defendants have their principal place 2 of business in this district. Jurisdiction and venue are not contested. 3 JURY / NON-JURY 4 All parties request a jury trial. The jury will include 12 jurors. 5 UNDISPUTED FACTS 6 1. Plaintiff C.R. (“Plaintiff” or “C.R.”) at the time relevant to this action was a minor 7 and a special education student within EGUSD. 8 2. Plaintiff was placed at CES for her education by EGUSD. 9 3. CES is a non-public school organized as a private corporation under California law. 10 4. C.R. attended CES for approximately one year (January 2019 through January 11 2020), beginning when she was eleven years old. 12 5. During the time that C.R. attended CES, school administrators considered C.R.’s 13 mental age to have been between five and seven years old. 14 6. Tiffany Roe is Plaintiff C.R.’s step-grandmother and legal guardian. 15 7. CES and EGUSD entered into a Master Contract to provide special education 16 services to students with exceptional needs for the 2018–2019 and 2019–2020 17 school years. 18 8. EGUSD places students who cannot be served directly through its public schools 19 with contracted non-public schools. 20 9. Defendant Marilyn Delgado (“Ms. Delgado”) was employed as a Program Specialist 21 with EGUSD during the 2019–2020 school year. 22 10. At the times relevant to this action, Ms. Delgado oversaw students who are placed 23 in a nonpublic school by EGUSD and facilitated their Individualized Education 24 Program (IEP) meetings. 25 11. Defendant Ira Ross is the CEO of CES. 26 12. On November 5, 2019, an IEP meeting was held, during which Tiffany Roe 27 expressed concern about the education C.R. was receiving at CES. 28 ///// 1 13. On January 30, 2020, Tiffany Roe and Marilyn Delgado spoke by telephone, during 2 which phone call Tiffany Roe reported to Ms. Delgado that C.R. had told Tiffany 3 Roe that at least one male student at CES took her behind a wall and told her to put 4 his penis in her mouth and she did. 5 14. During the January 30, 2020, call, C.R. entered the room and told Tiffany Roe for 6 the first time that the two male students had also put their penises in her vagina, 7 with the phone on speaker. 8 15. Tiffany Roe took C.R. to the hospital on January 30, 2020. 9 16. Ms. Delgado called Child Protective Services and made a report on January 30, 10 2020. 11 17. In light of C.R.’s allegations, the Sacramento Police Department interviewed C.R. 12 and Tiffany Roe, and visited CES and C.R.’s classroom. 13 DISPUTED FACTUAL ISSUES 14 The parties have alerted the court to their factual disputes. Trial briefs addressing these 15 factual disputes more completely shall be filed with this court no later than fourteen days prior to 16 the date of trial in accordance with Local Rule 285. 17 SPECIAL FACTUAL INFORMATION 18 1. The alleged incidents took place beginning from May 13, 2019, through the end of 19 January 2020. 20 2. The location of the alleged incidents was Capitol Elementary School, 5700 13th 21 Avenue, Sacramento CA 95817. 22 3. C.R. has alleged negligence and therefore res ipsa loqitur may apply. 23 4. C.R.’s age: 11 years old on May 13, 2019, and 12 years old on the date of the 24 remaining allegations. 25 5. Alleged injuries sustained: C.R. experienced significant trauma and PTSD 26 symptoms following her assault in January 2020. C.R.’s access to education was 27 impacted by Defendants’ failure to create a safe environment for C.R. and respond 28 to her concerns. 1 6. Periods of hospitalization: C.R. presented to the hospital on January 30, 2020, for a 2 rape evaluation, but was never hospitalized overnight as a result of her rape. 3 7. Medical expenses and estimated future medical expenses: Plaintiff received 4 significant trauma therapy in the years following the alleged rape. Plaintiff’s expert 5 psychiatrist Dr. Richard J. Shaw performed an evaluation on Plaintiff C.R. on 6 January 6, 2024. Following this evaluation, in his expert report, he assessed that 7 C.R. would require the below treatment due to persistent symptoms associated with 8 being sexually harassed and assaulted: 9 A. Continued weekly psychotherapy through at least two years following her 10 high school graduation; and 11 B. An additional 3-5 years of individual psychotherapy during each significant 12 developmental transition over the course of her lifetime (e.g. leaving home, 13 engaging in romantic relationships); 14 8. 6–12 months of couples’ therapy should C.R. engage in a romantic and sexual 15 relationship and experience trauma symptoms related to her sexual assault. 16 MOTIONS IN LIMINE AND DISPUTED EVIDENTIARY ISSUES 17 At oral argument, counsel for both parties expressed the desire to have a settlement 18 conference before motions in limine and other evidentiary disputes were resolved. The parties are 19 currently scheduled for a settlement conference before the Honorable Judge Dennis M. Cota on 20 July 16, 2025. See Min. Order (July 7, 2025), ECF NO. 164. 21 The schedule for briefing on the parties’ evidentiary disputes, which will take place after 22 the settlement conference, is as follows. 23 1. Motions in Limine 24 All parties shall submit motions in limine within 60 days of the completion of the 25 mandatory settlement conference with Judge Cota. Oppositions are due within 75 days of the 26 settlement conference. For motions in limine contesting the parties’ respective expert witnesses 27 under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Chemicals, 509 U.S. 579 (1993), parties will be allowed a reply. 28 ///// 1 Replies, if submitted, are due 85 days after the completion of the mandatory settlement 2 conference. Plaintiff has stated she intends to submit the following motions in limine regarding: 3 A. evidence of C.R.’s early-childhood sexual abuse. 4 B. evidence of C.R.’s allegedly sexualized behavior towards others. 5 C. any suggestion that C.R.—a disabled minor—was capable of consenting 6 to the harassment and sexual assaults. 7 D. evidence of complaints by Tiffany Roe or C.R. at different schools. 8 E. evidence pertaining to the supposed lack of prior disciplinary issues, 9 or the behavioral record of the male students involved in the alleged 10 incidents. 11 F. commentary regarding jury awards against EGUSD being paid from 12 taxpayer money. 13 G. any suggestion that C.R. could not be victimized due to her physical size. 14 H. motions to exclude or limit the testimony of Defendants’ designated 15 experts, Joseph S.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

C.R. v. Elk Grove Unified School District, (E.D. Cal. 2025).

C.R. v. Elk Grove Unified School District (C.R. v. Elk Grove Unified School District) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
509 U.S. 579 (Supreme Court, 1993)