Sophie Strasburg et al vs Santa Barbara Unified School District et al

Case Number

20CV00740

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Fri, 09/05/2025 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

6 Motions to Compel; Motion for Leave

Tentative Ruling

For all reasons discussed herein:

1. Defendants’ motion for leave to amend answer and affirmative defenses is granted. Defendants shall separately file and serve their amended answer to plaintiffs’ first amended complaint no later than September 10, 2025.

2. Plaintiffs’ six motions to compel further responses to discovery requests, as well as each parties’ requests for monetary sanctions, are continued to October 24, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. in this department for hearing

            a. Plaintiffs shall file and serve new notices of hearing that specifically identify, by set and number, which discovery responses are in dispute, as well as separate statements, that conform to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(c), as described below, no later than September 19, 2025.

            b. Defendants shall file and serve their opposing separate statements no later than October 3, 2025.

            c. Plaintiffs shall file their replies, if any, no later than October 10, 2025.

3. As a result of the granting of defendants’ motion for leave to file their amended answer to the first amended complaint, the parties are ordered to further meet and confer, regarding all six of the discovery motions, no later than September 12, 2025 (and thereafter as may be necessary). The meet and confer is to occur by way of telephone or virtual meetings. Any agreements that limit or nullify the discovery motions are to be confirmed in writing and the parties shall promptly notify the court of any such limitations or nullities by way of a joint status report.

Background:

The first amended complaint (FAC) filed on February 19, 2021, by plaintiffs Sophie Strasburg (Sophie), Gidget Strasburg (Gidget), Keven Strasburg (Keven), and Summer Strasburg (Summer), by her guardian ad litem Gidget (collectively, plaintiffs), is the operative pleading in this matter. (Note: To avoid confusion due to common familial surnames, the court will refer to plaintiffs individually by their given names. No disrespect is intended.) As alleged in the FAC:

On February 22, 2019, Sophie, who was 17 years old at the time and attending San Marcos High School (San Marcos), was chosen to perform in a variety talent show for the theater department of San Marcos. (FAC, ¶¶ GN-1 & Prem.L-1.) The variety talent show was organized, sanctioned, and presented by defendants San Marcos, the Santa Barbara Unified School District (the SBUSD), Shannon Saleh (Saleh), Suzette McCormick (McCormick), and Alex Sheldon (Sheldon). (FAC, ¶¶ GN-1.) (Note: The record indicates that Sheldon was erroneously sued as “Alex Shelton”.)

Under the direction of San Marcos, Saleh, McCormick, and Sheldon, Sophie was directed to wear a hippopotamus costume as part of her act. (FAC, ¶ GN-1.) The costume Sophie wore was too large, poorly maintained, and created visual impairment. (Ibid.) In addition, the lighting in the auditorium was insufficient. (Ibid.) During her performance, Sophie fell off an elevated stage, severely injuring her left ankle. (FAC, ¶ GN-1 & Prem.L-1.) Sophie’s parents, Keven and Gidget, and Sophie’s younger sister Summer, were in the audience and witnessed Sophie fall and injure herself. (Ibid.) Keven, Gidget, and Summer each suffered mental anguish, emotional trauma, and distress from the event. (FAC, ¶ GN-1.)

Sophie was taken to the emergency room where she was diagnosed with multiple fractures in her left ankle, foot, and the lower end of her left fibula. (FAC, ¶ GN-1.) As a result of Sophie’s injuries, she was required to utilize a knee scooter to travel around San Marcos. (Ibid.)

On April 23, 2019, Sophie was on her way to the theater department as required by San Marcos when she hit a curb. (FAC, ¶ GN-1 [fourth cause of action at p. 7].) San Marcos failed to provide safe handicap access around the campus for Sophie and to properly maintain its premises. (Ibid.) Sophie was thrown from her knee scooter, breaking her left elbow and suffering injuries to her face. (Ibid.)

Plaintiffs allege five causes of action: (1) negligence (against San Marcos, Saleh, McCormick, Sheldon, and the SBUSD); (2) premises liability (against San Marcos, Saleh, McCormick, Sheldon, and the SBUSD); (3) negligent supervision of a minor (against San Marcos, Saleh, McCormick, Sheldon, and the SBUSD); (4) negligence (against San Marcos and the SBUSD); and (5) premises liability (against San Marcos and the SBUSD).

As the FAC’s sole function was to add McCormick as a defendant, on March 18, 2021, McCormick filed an answer to the FAC, generally denying its allegations and asserting twenty-five affirmative defenses. As there were no changes in the allegations against the other defendants, San Marcos, Saleh, Sheldon, and SBUSD’s answer to the original complaint is also deemed their answer to the FAC.

On October 19, 2023, the SBUSD, Saleh, McCormick, and Sheldon filed a cross-complaint against Christopher “Woody” Locke (Locke), asserting four causes of action for indemnification, apportionment of fault, negligence, intentional tort, and alleging that Locke’s willful failure to use reasonable care in supervising students for the Royal Blue Variety Show at San Marcos caused Sophie’s injuries.

On April 2, 2025, defendants and cross-complainants dismissed their cross-complaint with prejudice.

Also on April 2, 2025, defendants filed an “Amended Admission of Liability” that provides: “PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, defendants, Santa Barbara Unified School District, Shannon Saleh, Alex Sheldon (erroneously named as Alex Shelton), Suzette McCormick, and Santa Barbara Unified School District (erroneously sued herein as San Marcos High School) admit liability in this matter for the February 22, 2019 accident at San Marcos High School during the Royal Blue Revue, and will not assert comparative fault against any Plaintiff. Defendants do not admit the reasonableness and necessity of the medical care provided to Plaintiffs, the nature and extent of Plaintiff’s injuries, and damages asserted by Plaintiffs.”

Following several previous discovery motions, plaintiffs’ have now filed six more, as identified above. The motions are opposed.

Defendants have filed a motion for leave to amend their answer to the FAC to reflect that they are admitting liability. The motion is not opposed.

Analysis:

            Motion for Leave to File Amended Answer

As noted above, defendants seek to amend their answer to plaintiffs’ FAC to remove affirmative defenses that they no longer assert.

The proposed amended answer is attached to the declaration of defense counsel as Exhibit A. The proposed amendments are intended to make the answer conform to the April 2, 2025, amended admission of liability.

As summarized, the original answers to plaintiffs’ complaint and FAC lists the following 25 affirmative defenses: (1) Fails to state a claim sufficient to constitute a cause of action; (2) Proximate cause of the incident was due to the negligence or strict liability of other persons or entities; (3) Plaintiffs assumed the risks that contributed to or caused the claimed injuries; (4) Plaintiffs were contributorily negligent; (5) Plaintiffs’ willful misconduct caused and contributed to the claimed injuries and damages; (6) Any injuries, losses, and damages alleged were the result of unavoidable accident and occurred without any negligence on the part of defendants; (7) Plaintiffs failed to mitigate the amount of damages; (8) Plaintiffs have failed to allege facts with an adequate legal basis to support a claim for emotional distress; (9) The events, injuries, losses, and damages alleged, if any, “were the result of and solely caused by an irresistible, superhuman act which no person can control”; (10) Plaintiffs were engaged in a joint and common enterprise, such that the negligence of each is imputed to the other, and that plaintiffs were careless, reckless, and negligent in causing or contributing to plaintiffs’ claimed injuries and damages; (11) Plaintiffs’ action is barred by the doctrine of release; (12) Plaintiffs’ action is barred by the doctrine of waiver; (13) Plaintiffs’ action is barred by the doctrine of estoppel; (14) Plaintiffs’ action is barred by the doctrine of laches; (15) Plaintiffs have failed to state sufficient facts to entitle them, or any of them, to the recovery of prejudgment interest; (16) Any liability imposed has been contractually assumed by third parties; (17) Plaintiffs’ action is barred by the doctrine of privilege; (18) Plaintiffs’ action is barred by reason of the statute of limitations; (19) Plaintiffs did not suffer any detriment or damages in any amount; (20) Plaintiffs’ FAC is barred by a qualified immunity; (21) Plaintiffs’ FAC is barred by an absolute immunity; (22) Defendants reserved the right to strike any allegations that attempt to enlarge upon the facts and contentions set forth in the FAC; (23) Plaintiffs failed to comply with the claims provisions of the Government Code; (24) Plaintiffs’ FAC is barred by several provisions of the Government Code; and (25) Plaintiffs’ action is not brought in goof faith and is frivolous.

The result of the amended answer to the FAC is that all affirmative defenses that were asserted in the original answers are abandoned other than the first, seventh, and fifteenth affirmative defenses. If the court grants the motion, the amended answer will contain a general denial and the following affirmative defenses: (1) Fails to state a claim sufficient to constitute a cause of action; (2) Plaintiffs failed to mitigate the amount of damages; and (3) Plaintiffs have failed to state sufficient facts to entitle them, or any of them, to the recovery of prejudgment interest.

Defendants contend that these modifications make clear that “the only issue remaining in this matter [is] the nature and extent of Plaintiffs’ claimed damages.” (Chashm Decl., ¶ 6.)

Pursuant to Code of Civil procedure section 473(a)(1), the court may, in furtherance of justice, and on any terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading. The court’s discretion will usually be exercised liberally to permit amendment of the pleadings. (Howard v. County of San Diego (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1422, 1428.) The policy favoring amendment is so strong that it is a rare case in which denial of leave to amend can be justified. (Douglas v. Superior Court (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 155, 158.)

“In particular, liberality should be displayed in allowing amendments to answers, for a defendant denied leave to amend is permanently deprived of a defense.” (Hulsey v. Koehler (1990) 218 Cal.App.3d 1150, 1159.)

There is no reason why defendants should not be allowed to abandon affirmative defenses. If anything, it is beneficial to plaintiffs. The court finds that defendants did not unreasonably delay the filing of the motion and that plaintiffs will suffer no prejudice by the amendments to the answer.

Defendants’ motion for leave to file their amended answer will be granted.

            Discovery Motions

Plaintiffs’ six discovery motions follow several previous discovery motions that have been filed, and ruled upon, in this action.

The largest issue that the court has with the current discovery motions is that the separate statements, for each of the motions, are non-compliant with the California Rules of Court.

California Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(c) provides:

“A separate statement is a separate document filed and served with the discovery motion that provides all the information necessary to understand each discovery request and all the responses to it that are at issue. The separate statement must be full and complete so that no person is required to review any other document in order to determine the full request and the full response. Material must not be incorporated into the separate statement by reference. The separate statement must include - - for each discovery request (e.g., each interrogatory, request for admission, deposition question, or inspection demand) to which a further response, answer, or production is requested--the following:

“(1) The text of the request, interrogatory, question, or inspection demand;

“(2) The text of each response, answer, or objection, and any further responses or answers;

“(3) A statement of the factual and legal reasons for compelling further responses, answers, or production as to each matter in dispute;

“(4) If necessary, the text of all definitions, instructions, and other matters required to understand each discovery request and the responses to it;

“(5) If the response to a particular discovery request is dependent on the response given to another discovery request, or if the reasons a further response to a particular discovery request is deemed necessary are based on the response to some other discovery request, the other request and the response to it must be set forth; and

“(6) If the pleadings, other documents in the file, or other items of discovery are relevant to the motion, the party relying on them must summarize each relevant document.”

Rather than be structured in compliance with the above authority, plaintiffs’ separate statements are formatted as if they were in support of motions for summary judgment. In each of them, they list two columns. The first column in each motion reads either “Facts in Dispute” or “Undisputed Material Facts.” The second column reads: “Disputed/Undisputed,” and is left blank; presumably for defendants to either agree or disagree with whatever statement is made by plaintiffs. Then, the “facts” set forth by plaintiffs either have no proper place in a discovery motion separate statement, or they are placed in the separate statement in such a way that it is impossible to tell which discovery request they pertain to. Next, the separate statements improperly incorporate information and evidence by reference. Next, the requests are grouped so that several requests are listed, but the responses are listed much further down. For example, in the separate statement in support of the motion to compel Saleh to provide further responses to RFAs, set two, items 11 through 39 are all requests. Then, at item 40 through 44, plaintiffs include the responses to various requests and statements regarding any objections lacking merit. There is no cohesiveness to the layout or arguments that plaintiffs rely upon.

Separate statements are meant to ensure clarity and completeness, both for the benefit of the court in ruling on discovery motions as well as for the opposing party in their ability to address the arguments made. By way of their oppositions, defendants express some frustration with attempting to respond to plaintiffs’ separate statements. The court fully understands why. Rather than making the motions clear and complete, the separate statements significantly hinder the ability to understand the specific requests in dispute or the arguments being made as to each request.

Because the separate statements are wholly inadequate, the hearings on the motions will be continued and plaintiffs will be ordered to prepare separate statements that comply with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(c). The format of the separate statement should conform to the following:

“Request No. [X]

“Response to Request No. [X]

“Factual and Legal Reasons for Compelling Further Responses, [or] Answers, [or] Production, to Request No. [X].”

Plaintiffs will also be ordered to file new notices of motion that specifically identify the requests and demands in dispute by set and number.

            Meet and Confer

As the motion for leave to file and amended answer will be granted, and the hearings on the discovery motions will be continued, the parties will be ordered to further meet and confer and attempt to resolve or substantially limit the remaining issues in dispute.

Without ruling on the discovery motions, and without indicating how it will ultimately rule on the motions, the court makes the following observations in the hope that they will assist the parties in their meet and confer efforts:

“Civil discovery is intended to operate with a minimum of judicial intervention. “ ‘[I]t is a ‘ “central precept” ’ of the Civil Discovery Act . . . that discovery ‘ “be essentially self-executing[.]” ’ ” [Citations.]” (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390.)

“Unless otherwise limited by order of the court in accordance with this title, any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action or to the determination of any motion made in that action, if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Discovery may relate to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or of any other party to the action. Discovery may be obtained of the identity and location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter, as well as of the existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and location of any document, electronically stored information, tangible thing, or land or other property.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2017.010.)

“A trial court must be mindful of the Legislature’s preference for discovery over trial by surprise, [and] must construe the facts before it liberally in favor of discovery. . .” (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 540.)

Despite the numerous issues with the motions, the court has reviewed the discovery requests, responses, and arguments made by counsel. Without specifying any particular discovery request, the court notes that both sides appear to have misconceptions about the scope of discovery. For example: Defendants appear to believe that the fact they admitted liability precludes plaintiffs from obtaining discovery regarding how the alleged accident occurred or communications from parties and witnesses regarding their observations. Defendants’ objections are based on an apparent oversimplification of what the discovery might show. The communications could relate to the nature and extent of the injuries. If, for example, witnesses claim that Sophie crashed to the ground screaming in pain, it would possibly infer that there was substantially more pain and suffering than if witnesses testified that she laughed and simply walked away.

On the other hand, some of plaintiffs’ requests and demands seek information that is clearly not reasonably likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, particularly with respect to some of the requests for admission, given the admission of liability.

The above examples are not exhaustive.

The parties need to go through each request and demand and, considering the preference for discovery, determine what must be produced, admitted, or answered.

Counsel for both sides are experienced and capable. Each have been involved in many similar discovery disputes and the court has explained, each time, the law with respect to discovery. The court believes that both counsel understand what is properly discoverable, and that they are capable of resolving these disputes, or significantly narrowing the issues, without further court intervention.

The court notes that there are two additional discovery motions scheduled for hearing on September 19, 2025. The parties are encouraged to meet and confer further regarding those disputes as well.