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

Case Number

20CV00740

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Fri, 10/24/2025 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

8 Motions to Compel

Tentative Ruling

For all reasons discussed herein:

1. Plaintiffs’ motion to compel defendant Santa Barbara Unified School District to provide further responses to plaintiffs’ requests for production, set three, and for production of responsive documents is granted in part and denied in part.

            a. Santa Barbara Unified School District shall provide further code-compliant responses, without objection except as to privilege, to requests for production of documents, set three, Nos. 72, 73, 74, and 75, along with production of all responsive documents, no later than November 3, 2025.

            b. The motion is denied as to requests Nos. 64, 65, and 67.

            c. No monetary sanctions are awarded in favor of or against any party.

2. Plaintiffs’ motion to compel defendant Santa Barbara Unified School District to provide further responses to plaintiffs’ requests for admission, set two, is granted in part and denied in part.

            a. Santa Barbara Unified School District shall provide further code-compliant responses, without objections, to requests Nos. 134 and 135 no later than November 3, 2025.

            b. The motion is denied as to requests Nos. 83, 84, 85, 89, 90, 94, 122, 123, 124, 125, and 126.

            c. No monetary sanctions are awarded in favor of or against any party.

3. Plaintiffs’ motion to compel defendant Alex Sheldon to provide further responses to plaintiffs’ requests for admission, set two, is granted in part and denied in part.

            a. Alex Sheldon shall provide further code-compliant responses, without objections, to requests Nos. 93 and 94 no later than November 3, 2025.

            b. The motion is denied as to requests Nos. 54, 55, 56, 60, 61, and 106.

            c. No monetary sanctions are awarded in favor of or against any party.

4. Plaintiffs’ motion to compel defendant Shannon Saleh to provide further responses to plaintiffs’ requests for admission, set two, is granted in part and denied in part.

            a. Shannon Saleh shall provide further code-compliant responses, without objections, to requests Nos. 112, 115, 119, and 120 no later than November 3, 2025.

            b. The motion is denied as to request No. 134.

            c. No monetary sanctions are awarded in favor of or against any party.

5. Plaintiffs’ motion to compel defendant Suzette McCormick to provide further responses to plaintiffs’ requests for admission, set two, is granted in part and denied in part.

            a. Suzette McCormick shall provide further code-compliant responses, without objections, to requests Nos. 85 and 86 no later than November 3, 2025.

            b. The motion is denied as to request No. 82.

            c. No monetary sanctions are awarded in favor of or against any party.

6. Plaintiffs’ motion to compel Santa Barbara Unified School District to provide further responses to plaintiffs’ person most qualified deposition questions is denied as moot. However, monetary sanctions are awarded in favor of plaintiffs, and against Santa Barbara Unified School District and its attorneys of record, jointly and severally, in the amount of $3,300.00 dollars, payable to plaintiffs’ attorney of record no later than November 3, 2025.

7. Santa Barbara Unified School District’s motion to compel further responses to requests for admission, set two, is granted as modified below. Sophie Strasburg shall provide further code-compliant responses, without objections, to the requests, as modified below, no later than November 3, 2025. No monetary sanctions are awarded in favor of or against any party.

8. As Santa Barbara Unified School District has withdrawn its motion to compel further responses to requests for production of documents, set two, it is taken off-calendar as moot.

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.”

Defendants have amended their answer to reflect that they are not contesting liability.

Following several previous discovery motions, plaintiffs’ have filed six more, and SBUSD has filed two. The motions are opposed.

Plaintiffs’ motions were previously scheduled for hearing on September 5, 2025. At that hearing the parties were ordered to further meet and confer, by way of telephone or virtual meeting, in an effort to limit or nullify the discovery motions. They failed to do so, with each side blaming the other. The court is not pleased with counsels’ failure to comply with the order and considered issuing orders to show cause as to why counsel should not be personally sanctioned for their failure to comply. While the court will decline to issue OSCs at this time, counsel is reminded of their duty to comply with court orders and the potential consequences if they fail to do so.

Analysis:

            Discovery

“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.)

            Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel re Requests for Production, Set Three

Plaintiffs seek to compel further responses, and production of responsive documents, to RFP Nos. 64, 65, 67, 72, 73, 74, and 75.

By way of its separate statement in opposition to plaintiffs’ motion, SBUSD represents that as to RFP Nos. 72, 73, 74, and 75: “Although Responding Party previously produced all communications in its possession, custody, and/or control related to Plaintiff’s fall, it will – in the spirit of cooperation – amend its response.” As it has agreed to do so, SBUSD will be ordered to provide further responses and produce any responsive documents to the extent any have not been produced.

The remaining requests at issue are RFP Nos. 64, 65, and 67.

Code of Civil Procedure, section 2031.010 provides, in pertinent part:

“(a) Any party may obtain discovery . . . by inspecting, copying, testing, or sampling documents, tangible things, land or other property, and electronically stored information in the possession, custody, or control of the party on whom the demand is made.

“(b) A party may demand that any other party produce and permit the party making the demand, or someone acting on the demanding party’s behalf, to inspect and to copy a document that is in the possession, custody, or control of the party on whom the demand is made.”

“The party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling has been directed shall respond separately to each item or category of item by any of the following:

“(1) A statement that the party will comply with the particular demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling by the date set for the inspection, copying, testing, or sampling . . .

“(2) A representation that the party lacks the ability to comply with the demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling of a particular item or category of item, or

“(3) An objection to the particular demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.210, subd. (a).)

Code of Civil Procedure, section 2031.240, provides:

“(a) If only part of an item or category of item in a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is objectionable, the response shall contain a statement of compliance, or a representation of inability to comply with respect to the remainder of that item or category.

“(b) If the responding party objects to the demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling of an item or category of item, the response shall do both of the following:

“(1) Identify with particularity any document, tangible thing, land, or electronically stored information falling within any category of item in the demand to which an objection is being made.

“(2) Set forth clearly the extent of, and the specific ground for, the objection. If an objection is based on a claim of privilege, the particular privilege invoked shall be stated. If an objection is based on a claim that the information sought is protected work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010), that claim shall be expressly asserted.

“(c)(1) If an objection is based on a claim of privilege or a claim that the information sought is protected work product, the response shall provide sufficient factual information for other parties to evaluate the merits of that claim, including, if necessary, a privilege log.

“(2) It is the intent of the Legislature to codify the concept of a privilege log as that term is used in California case law. Nothing in this subdivision shall be construed to constitute a substantive change in case law.”

Request No. 64 seeks: “ALL DOCUMENTS RELATED TO PLAINTIFF SOPHIE STRASBURG’S Medical Records in your possession, including but not limited to physicians’ notes and diagnostic imaging studies.”

Request No. 65 seeks: “ALL DOCUMENTS RELATED TO PLAINTIFF SOPHIE STRASBURG’S Psychiatric or Psychological care Records in your possession, including but not limited to physicians’ notes and diagnostic imaging studies.”

Request No. 67 seeks: “ALL DOCUMENTS RELATED TO PLAINTIFF SOPHIE STRASBURG’S Medical Billing Records, in your possession.”

To each of the RFPs, SBUSD responded:

“Objection. The request is harassing, oppressive, and unduly burdensome. Extensive discovery has been completed in this case, and Plaintiff has received notice of every medical record subpoenaed by Defendant. She should, and could, have obtained copies when she received notice. The expense of her failure to do so should not be borne by Defendant. Plaintiff knows better than any party to this lawsuit which health-care professionals she has seen, when she has seen them, and for what purpose, and she can obtain those records at no cost to herself. Indeed, she has the right to obtain such records, and they are, as a matter of law, considered to be in her possession, custody, and control - whether or not she has actually obtained the copies. The demand that Defendant produce any medical records in its possession is an attempt to shift the burden of expense onto Defendant. Moreover, this demand is nothing more than an attempt by Plaintiff to learn what Defendant has uncovered about information she has attempted to conceal.”

Although SBUSD’s responses to the RFPs consist of mostly argument, the objections that can be gleaned from the responses are: (1) the requests are harassing, oppressive, and unduly burdensome, and (2) the requested documents are equally available.

“The failure to make timely objection constitutes a waiver.” (Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial Hosp. v. Superior Court (1978) 81 Cal.App.3d 626, 636.)

Facially, Sophie’s medical records and billing are relevant to this action.

SBUSD’s objection that the requests are harassing, oppressive, and unduly burdensome fails, as SBUSD has failed to provide any evidence of harassment, oppression, or undue burden.

“The objection based upon burden must be sustained by evidence showing the quantum of work required, while to support an objection of oppression there must be some showing either of an intent to create an unreasonable burden or that the ultimate effect of the burden is incommensurate with the result sought.” (West Pico Furniture Co. of Los Angeles v. Superior Court In and For Los Angeles County (1961) 56 Cal.2d 407, 417.) SBUSD has not even attempted to produce any evidence of burden or oppression. Rather, SBUSD argues, without citing any case law, that the requests are an attempt to shift the burden and expense onto SBUSD. SBUSD gives no indication of what that burden and expense consists of. It is more likely than not that there would be negligible burden and expense for SBUSD to simply forward the documents it has in its possession to plaintiff.

However, SBUSD’s objection based on the requested documents being equally, or even more, available to plaintiff has merit. They are Sophie’s own medical records and billings. Not only could she obtain the exact same records that SBUSD obtained by way of the copying service that executed the subpoenas issued by SBUSD, but Sophie could also have obtained the records simply by requesting copies from her providers. It would take minimal effort for Sophie to obtain the records from her own providers. To the extent that Sophie argues that she is trying to figure out if SBUSD claims to have acquired information that Sophie is attempting to conceal, Sophie is not precluded from propounding a more narrowly tailored request that seeks documents in support of any such contention by SBUSD.

The motion will be denied as to RFP Nos. 64, 65, and 67.

Each party seeks monetary sanctions in connection with the motion. As the motion will be partly granted and partly denied, no sanctions will be imposed in favor of or against either party.

            Plaintiffs’ Motions to Compel Requests for Admissions, Set Two

Code of Civil Procedure, section 2033.010 provides, in pertinent part: “Any party may obtain discovery . . . by a written request that any other party to the action admit the genuineness of specified documents, or the truth of specified matters of fact, opinion relating to fact, or application of law to fact. A request for admission may relate to a matter that is in controversy between the parties.”

“The party to whom requests for admission have been directed shall respond in writing under oath separately to each request. Each response shall answer the substance of the requested admission, or set forth an objection to the particular request.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.210, subds. (a-b).

Although admissions should not be substantively compound, the responding party has an affirmative duty to “admit so much of the matter involved in the request as is true, either as expressed in the request itself or as reasonably and clearly qualified by the responding party.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.220, subd. (b)(1).)

RFAs “differ fundamentally from other forms of discovery. Rather than seeking to uncover information, they seek to eliminate the need for proof.” (Murillo v. Superior Court (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 730, 735.)

                        Santa Barbara Unified School District

Plaintiff moves to compel further responses, from SBUSD, to RFA Nos. 83, 84, 85, 89, 90, 94, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 134, and 135.

As to RFA Nos. 122, 123, 124, 125, and 126, they were not included in plaintiffs’ original motion. The hearing on this matter was continued so that the parties could further meet and confer in an attempt to limit the scope of the motions, which they failed to do. It is not permissible for plaintiff to add additional discovery disputes to the motion. The motion will be denied as to RFA Nos. 122, 123, 124, 125, and 126.

As to RFA Nos. 134 and 135, by way of its opposing separate statement SBUSD has represented that it will amend its response. SBUSD will be ordered to do so.

The remaining RFAs are Nos. 83, 84, 85, 89, 90, and 94.

Request No. 83 asks SBUSD: “ADMIT that prior to the February 22, 2019, Royal Blue Review Variety Show, DEFENDANT SHANNON SALEH was told by Christopher ‘Woody’ Locke that the haphazard manner in which preparations were made for the Royal Blue Review Variety Show posed a danger to the students participating in the production.”

Request No. 84 asks SBUSD: “ADMIT that DEFENDANT SHANNON SALEH did nothing to mitigate the concerns expressed by Christopher ‘Woody’ Locke regarding potential danger to students who were to participate in the Royal Blue Revue Variety Show.”

Request No. 85 asks SBUSD: “ADMIT that DEFENDANT SHANNON SALEH failed to notify students participating in the February 22, 2019, Royal Blue Review Variety Show in that Christopher ‘Woody’ Locke had voiced concerns about possible danger to them.”

Request No. 89 asks SBUSD: “ADMIT that prior to the February 22, 2019, Royal Blue Review production, DEFENDANT ALEX SHELDON was told by Christopher ‘Woody’ Locke that there were insufficient rehearsals for the Royal Blue Review production.”

Request No. 90 asks SBUSD: “ADMIT that prior to the February 22, 2019, Royal Blue Review Variety Show, DEFENDANT ALEX SHELDON was told by Christopher “Woody” Locke that the haphazard manner in which the Royal Blue Review was being prepared posed a danger to the students participating in the Royal Blue Review production.”

Request No. 94 asks SBUSD: “ADMIT that DEFENDANT ALEX SHELDON never reported to YOU that Christopher Locke voiced his concerns to Vice Principal Alex Sheldon, over lack of concern over safety for the February 22, 2019, THEATRICAL PERFORMANCE at San Marcos High School.”

To each of the requests, SBUSD replied: “Objection. In light of Responding Party’s admission of liability for the February 22, 2019 accident at San Marcos High School during the Royal Blue Revue, and that it would not assert comparative fault against any Plaintiff, the request is harassing as it causes unwarranted annoyance, oppression, and undue burden and expense. And, in light of the admission, it is not relevant to the subject matter involved in this matter, nor is it reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” In response to RFA No. 90, SBUSD also added the sentence: ‘It is also harassing and oppressive because the cross-complaint against Christopher Locke has been dismissed with prejudice.”

With respect to requests Nos. 83, 84, 85, 89, 90, and 94, by way of their separate statement, plaintiffs argue: “There is compelling evidence that Defendant Alex Sheldon was warned of the potential dangers to students before the Royal Blue Review preparation. Plaintiffs are entitled to conduct discovery as to facts involved in the accident which is a basis of Plaintiffs’ lawsuit. Discovery is permitted as to the cause of the accident. Such discovery may support a claim for punitive damages. Further, the fact that discovery is permitted does not mean the information will be admissible at trial.”

Plaintiffs provide no context for their argument regarding their contention that Sheldon was warned of the potential dangers to students, or how that contention makes the information sought by the requests relevant. Defendants have admitted complete liability for the incident and the only remaining issues are the reasonableness and necessity of the medical care, the nature and extent of plaintiff’s injuries, and damages. Further, the argument that such discovery may support a claim for punitive damages is unpersuasive. There is not prayer for punitive damages in the FAC, and none of the allegations contained in the FAC have any tendency to support an award of punitive damages.

The motion to compel further responses to requests Nos. 83, 84, 85, 89, 90, and 94 will be denied.

Each party seeks monetary sanctions in connection with the motion. As the motion will be partly granted and partly denied, no sanctions will be imposed in favor of or against either party.

                        Alex Sheldon

Plaintiff moves to compel further responses, from Sheldon, to RFA Nos. 54, 55, 56, 60, 61, 93, 94, and 106.

By way of his opposing separate statement, Sheldon has represented that he will amend his response to RFA Nos. 93 and 94. He will be ordered to do so.

Request No. 54 asks Sheldon: “ADMIT that prior to the February 22, 2019, Royal Blue Review Variety Show, Christopher ‘Woody’ Locke told YOU that the haphazard manner in which preparations were made for the Royal Blue Review Variety Show posed a danger to the students participating in the production.”

Request No. 55 asks Sheldon: “ADMIT that YOU did nothing to mitigate the concerns expressed by Christopher ‘Woody’ Locke regarding potential danger to students who were to participate in the Royal Blue Revue Variety Show.”

Request No. 56 asks Sheldon: “ADMIT that YOU failed to notify students participating in the February 22, 2019, Royal Blue Review Variety Show in that Christopher ‘Woody’ Locke had voiced concerns about possible danger to them.”

Request No. 60 asks Sheldon: “ADMIT that YOU did not warn PLAINTIFF SOPHIE STRASBURG of the potential dangers of wearing the hippopotamus costume during February 22, 2019, Royal Blue Review Variety Show.”

Request No. 61 asks Sheldon: “ADMIT that YOU failed to warn any of the students participating in the Royal Blue Review Variety Show of ANY potential physical dangers to them by participating in the February 22, 2019, Royal Blue Review Variety show.”

Request No. 106 asks Sheldon: “ADMIT that there were at least three prior incidents in which students wearing the same hippopotamus costume worn by PLAINTIFF SOPHIE STRASBURG during performance in the Royal Blue Revue Variety show on February 22, 2019, fell.”

To each of the requests, SBUSD replied: “Objection. In light of Responding Party’s admission of liability for the February 22, 2019 accident at San Marcos High School during the Royal Blue Revue, and that it would not assert comparative fault against any Plaintiff, the request is harassing as it causes unwarranted annoyance, oppression, and undue burden and expense. And, in light of the admission, it is not relevant to the subject matter involved in this matter, nor is it reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.”

Each of the requests seeks admissions regarding issues that pertain to liability. As defendants have fully accepted liability, the requests are not relevant and are not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.  The only remaining issues are the reasonableness and necessity of the medical care, the nature and extent of plaintiff’s injuries, and damages.

The motion will be denied as to RFAs Nos. 54, 55, 56, 60, 61, and 106.

Each party seeks monetary sanctions in connection with the motion. As the motion will be partly granted and partly denied, no sanctions will be imposed in favor of or against either party.

                        Shannon Saleh

Plaintiff moves to compel further responses, from Saleh, to RFA Nos. 112, 115, 119, 120, and 134.

By way of her opposing separate statement, Saleh has represented that she will amend her response to RFA Nos. 112, 115, 119, and 120. She will be ordered to do so.

Request No. 134 asks Saleh: “ADMIT that there were at least three prior incidents in which students wearing the same hippopotamus costume worn by PLAINTIFF SOPHIE STRASBURG during performance in the Royal Blue Revue Variety show on February 22, 2019, fell.”

The request is identical to RFA No. 106 propounded on Sheldon. The motion will be denied, as to this request, for the same reasons.

Each party seeks monetary sanctions in connection with the motion. As the motion will be partly granted and partly denied, no sanctions will be imposed in favor of or against either party.

                        Suzette McCormick

Plaintiff moves to compel further responses, from McCormick, to RFA Nos. 82 (misnumbered as 81 in the actual requests), 85 (misnumbered as No. 84), and 86 (misnumbered as 85).

By way of her opposing separate statement, McCormick has represented that she will amend her response to RFA Nos. 85 and 86. She will be ordered to do so.

RFA No. 82 asks McCormick: “ADMIT that YOU disapproved of DEFENDANT SHANNON SALEH allowing another student to wear the hippo costume on stage during the Royal Blue Review Variety Show on February 22, 2019.”

McCormick responded: “Objection. In light of Responding Party’s admission of liability for the February 22, 2019 accident at San Marcos High School during the Royal Blue Revue, and that it would not assert comparative fault against any Plaintiff, the request is harassing as it causes unwarranted annoyance, oppression, and undue burden and expense. And, in light of the admission, it is not relevant to the subject matter involved in this matter, nor is it reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.”

Plaintiffs argue: “There is evidence that both Defendant Shannon Saleh and Defendant Alex Sheldon were warned that the preparation for and rehearsals of the Royal Blue Review were insufficient and posed a possible risk of injury to the students. Whether a defendant disapproved of Defendant Shannon Saleh’s decision to put another student in the dangerous hippopotamus costume is relevant and may constitute an admission. The fact that another student risked injury by wearing the hippopotamus costume is also relevant to the emotional distress claims of Sophie’s relatives.”

Again, the RFA is clearly directed at liability and because liability is admitted, the request is irrelevant, and the motion will be denied as to RFA No. 82.

Each party seeks monetary sanctions in connection with the motion. As the motion will be partly granted and partly denied, no sanctions will be imposed in favor of or against either party.

Plaintiffs’ Motion re: Person Most Qualified

Plaintiffs contend that counsel for SBUSD improperly instructed their PMQ to not answer several questions that were, at the time the questions were posed, relevant to the issues.

“If a deponent fails to answer any question or to produce any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing under the deponent's control that is specified in the deposition notice or a deposition subpoena, the party seeking discovery may move the court for an order compelling that answer or production.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.480, subd. (a).)

Plaintiffs are correct that it was improper for defense counsel to instruct the PMQ to not answer the questions posed. None of the questions sought privileged information.

“[E]ven were the questions designed to elicit irrelevant evidence, irrelevance alone is an insufficient ground to justify preventing a witness from answering a question posed at a deposition.” (Stewart v. Colonial Western Agency, Inc. (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1006, 1014.)

The court has reviewed all the questions at issue, and the conversation that took place regarding those questions. There is no doubt that SBUSD’s counsel was obstructionist and improperly instructed the PMQ to not answer questions. If liability were still an issue in this case, the motion would be granted. However, all the questions relate to liability and are no longer relevant. As such, the motion will be denied as moot.

However, the court finds that counsel for SBUSD engaged in a misuse of the discovery process by being obstructive and asserting unmeritorious objections to the deposition questions without substantial justification. SBUSD will be sanctioned pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.010. Plaintiffs seek $9,200.00 in monetary sanctions for 12 hours of paralegal time at $125 per hour, and 14 hours of attorney time at $550 per hour. The court finds the time excessive and will award a reduced amount for six hours of attorney time at $550 per hour, for a total of $3,300. Plaintiffs’ request that SBUSD bear the costs for the PMQ deposition will be denied.

            SBUSD’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Admission

SBUSD seeks further responses from Sophie to RFAs Nos. 17, 19, 20, and 21.

RFA No. 17 asks Sophie: “You do not dispute Katie Ohrn’s testimony that you said the words ‘all is well’ immediately after you fell from the stage on February 22, 2019.”

RFA No. 19 asks Sophie: “You do not dispute Katie Ohrn’s testimony that one of your self-harming behaviors is cutting yourself.”

RFA No. 20 asks Sophie: “You do not dispute Katie Ohrn’s testimony that you have excruciating pain after walking a block or two.”

To RFAs Nos. 17, 19, and 20, Sophie responded: “Objection: This request is compound, vague and assumes alleged facts of which I am unaware. I did not attend the deposition of Katie Ohrn and I did not review her deposition testimony.”

RFA No. 21 asks Sophie: “You do not dispute Riley Bream’s testimony prior to your fall from the stage on February 22, 2019, you told Riley that your doctor described you as a medical mystery.”

To RFA No. 21, Sophie responded: ““Objection: This request is compound, vague and assumes alleged facts of which I am unaware. I did not attend the deposition of Riley Bream and I did not review her deposition testimony.”

 

Sophie’s objections are without merit. The RFAs are not compound or vague. While they could (and should) have been better worded, the only reasonable interpretation of the requests would be for Sophie to admit or deny the act the RFA references. For each of them, the reference to witnesses’ deposition testimony can simply be disregarded and it does not change the focus of the request. For example, RFA No. 17 could be properly read to state: “Admit that you do not dispute that you said the words ‘all is well’ immediately after you fell from the stage on February 22, 2019.”

All of the RFAs are directed at the potential nature and extent of Sophie’s claimed injuries. Sophie will be ordered to provide further responses as modified to remove the reference to the deposition testimony, in each of the requests, as explained directly above.

Both parties seek monetary sanctions against the other. The court does not find that either side acted reasonably with respect to these RFAs. Sophie could have just clarified in her response that she was responding as to the act itself rather than the represented deposition testimony of witnesses. On the other hand, SBUSD could have, and should have, simply removed the reference to the deposition testimony. As such, the imposition of sanctions under these circumstances would be unjust.

SBUSD’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production, Set Two

By way of its reply brief, SBUSD withdraws its motion. As such, the motion will be taken off calendar as moot. No sanctions shall be imposed against or in favor of any party.