John Roe R M et al vs Santa Barbara Unified School District et al

Case Number

24CV06479

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Mon, 10/20/2025 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

CMC; Motion: Quash Subpoeanas for Records, etc

Tentative Ruling

John Roe R.M. et al. v. Santa Barbara Unified School District, et al.                                                                                                

Case No. 24CV06479

Hearing Date: October 20, 2025                                  

HEARING:              Motion of Defendant Justin Sell to Quash or Limit Subpoenas for Production of Documents

                                                           

ATTORNEYS:        For Plaintiffs John Roe R.M., John Roe B.J., John Roe H.H., and John Roe D.L.: Michael W. Carney, Vache V. Muradian

                                    For Defendant Justin Sell: Molly Thurmond, Cyrus Khosh-Chashm

                                    For Defendant Santa Barbara Unified School District: Harry W. Harrison, Matthew S. Gibbs, Dana John McCune, Sabira Sherman

TENTATIVE RULING:

The motion of defendant Justin Sell to quash or limit subpoenas for production of documents is denied. Any documents produced in response to the subpoenas shall be subject to a protective order and, absent further order of the court, shall not be distributed or used for any purpose other than the present litigation.

Background: 

This action commenced on November 18, 2024, by the filing of the complaint by plaintiffs John Roes R.M. (“R.M.”), B.J. (“B.J.”), H.H. (“H.H.”), and D.L. (“D.L.”) (collectively “plaintiffs”) against defendants Santa Barbara Unified School District (“SBUSD”) and Justin Sell (“Sell”) for: (1) Childhood Sexual Abuse – as to Sell; (2) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress – as to Sell; (3) Sexual Harassment – as to Sell; (4) Negligent Hiring, Supervision, Training, and Retention – as to SBUSD; (5) Failure to Report Suspected Child Abuse – as to SBUSD; (6) Negligent Supervision of a Minor – as to SBUSD; and (7) Negligence – as to DOES 31-50.

As alleged in the complaint:

Sell worked at Dos Pueblos High School (“DPHS”) as a football coach and campus security guard beginning in the 2005-2006 school year. (Compl., ¶ 19.) Without any training, supervision, or oversight by SBUSD, Sell was permitted to be the unofficial supervisor of the weight room used by student athletes, which included having a key to the gym and weight room, which was otherwise only given to head coaches and the athletic director. (Ibid.)

In short, plaintiffs allege that while working at DPHS Sell engaged in numerous instances of inappropriate behavior including sexually assaulting plaintiffs, molesting them, punching a student in the face, repeatedly having lunch with freshman boys instead of performing his employment duties, going to a minor male student’s home, and transporting minor male students to and from school.

Plaintiffs further allege that SBUSD students and school employees were aware of Sell’s open and obvious inappropriate behavior and that the DPHS principal spoke to Sell multiple times about it, but despite SBUSD speaking with Sell about the behavior, Sell continued to engage in the inappropriate behaviors. Plaintiffs allege that SBUSD failed to document Sell’s misconduct and failed to document the numerous meetings and warnings to Sell. Plaintiffs also allege that SBUSD failed to report the punching of a student, and other behaviors, to law enforcement as required by law.

“Defendant SBUSD, acting through its administrators, supervisory employees, teachers and staff knew or should have known that SELL was not fit to be on campus with students based on the grounds that SELL would be physically overly close with students, that Defendant SELL would inappropriately touch students, that Defendant SELL would sexually harass students, that Defendant SELL would spend significant amount of time with minor students with no justification, and other conduct of similar nature.” (Compl., ¶ 28.)

“Defendant SBUSD, acting through its administrators, supervisors, teachers, coaches, and staff knew or should have known that Defendant SELL engaged in other misconduct prior to, and during, his abuse of PLAINTIFFS. Had Defendant SBUSD, acting through its administrators, supervisory employees, teachers and staff adequately supervised PLAINTIFFS and Defendant SELL, PLAINTIFFS would not have been abused and/or would not have been abused to the extent that they were abused.” (Compl., ¶ 31.)

“Upon information and belief, in or about June of 2013, Defendant SELL was arrested for crimes related to felony sex crimes against minors, specifically minors from SBUSD. Thereafter, in November of 2013, Defendant SELL pled no contest to several felony sex crimes against a minor. SELL was convicted and required to register as a sex offender.” (Compl., ¶ 32.)

On January 9, 2025, Sell answered the complaint with a general denial and 20 affirmative defenses.

On May 29, 2025, Sell’s counsel received Notices to Consumer and Deposition Subpoenas for the Production of Documents (“subpoenas”) seeking records from Santa Barbara Police Department, Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Office, and the Santa Barbara District Attorney’s Office, relating to Sell. (Thurmond Decl., ¶ 2 & Exh. 1.)

Sell now moves to quash the subpoenas or to limit them.

Plaintiffs oppose the motion.

Analysis:

“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, must construe the facts before it liberally in favor of discovery, may not use its discretion to extend the limits on discovery beyond those authorized by the Legislature, and should prefer partial to outright denials of discovery.” (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 540.)

“In accordance with the liberal policies underlying the discovery procedures, doubts as to relevance should be resolved in favor of permitting discovery.” (National Steel Products Co. v. Superior Court (1985) 164 Cal.App.3d 476, 493.)

“If a subpoena requires the attendance of a witness or the production of books, documents, electronically stored information, or other things before a court, or at the trial of an issue therein, or at the taking of a deposition, the court, upon motion reasonably made by any person described in subdivision (b), or upon the court’s own motion after giving counsel notice and an opportunity to be heard, may make an order quashing the subpoena entirely, modifying it, or directing compliance with it upon those terms or conditions as the court shall declare, including protective orders. In addition, the court may make any other order as may be appropriate to protect the person from unreasonable or oppressive demands, including unreasonable violations of the right of privacy of the person.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.1, subd. (a).)

“The state has two substantial interests in regulating pretrial discovery. The first is to facilitate the search for truth and promote justice. The second is to protect the legitimate privacy interests of the litigants and third parties. [Citation.] “ ‘The interest in truth and justice is promoted by allowing liberal discovery of information in the possession of the opposing party. [Citation.] The interest in privacy is promoted by restricting the procurement or dissemination of information from the opposing party upon a showing of ‘ “good cause.” ’ [Citations.]” The trial court is in the best position to weigh fairly the competing needs and interests of parties affected by discovery. [Citation.]” (Stadish v. Superior Court (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 1130, 1145.)

By way of its subpoenas, plaintiffs seek the following documents:

Santa Barbara Police Department:

Request No. 1: “Any and all DOCUMENTS related to any criminal investigation of JUSTIN ANTHONY SELL, DOB 02/19/1986, including but not limited to entire unredacted criminal investigative files, reports, supplemental reports, witness statements, photographs, audio recordings, video recordings, and forensic interviews.”

Request No. 2: “Any and all DOCUMENTS related to any criminal investigation of JUSTING ANTHONY SELL, DOB 02/19/1986, regarding child abuse and/or child sexual abuse and/or molestation and/or sexual harassment.”

Request No. 3: “Any and all DOCUMENTS related to child sexual abuse and/or child abuse and/or molestation and/or sexual harassment by JUSTIN ANTHONY SELL as a teacher at Dos Pueblos High School located at 7266 Alameda Ave, Goleta, CA 93117.”

Request No. 4: “Any and all DOCUMENTS relating to Orange County Superior Court Criminal Case No. 1441938 People of the State of California vs. Justin Anthony Sell.”

Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Office:

Request No. 1: “Any and all DOCUMENTS in the criminal case investigative file regarding the investigation into JUSTIN ANTHONY SELL (DOB 02/19/1986), sexually assaulting and molesting minor students at Oceanside High School, including but not limited to, all recorded statements, all recorded interviews, all video interviews, all videos (explicit videos may be redacted to remove body parts), photographs, all statements, all witness statements, all text messages, all social media messages, all text messages, all electronic evidence, all photos (graphic photos may be redacted), all evidence, audio recordings, all police reports and supplemental police reports.”

Request No. 2: “Any and all DOCUMENTS in the criminal case investigative file regarding the investigation into JUSTIN ANTHONY SELL (DOB 02/19/1986), sexually assaulting and molesting minor students, including but not limited to, all recorded statements, all recorded interviews, all video interviews, all videos (explicit videos may be redacted to remove body parts), photographs, all statements, all witness statements, all text messages, all social media messages, all text messages, all electronic evidence, all photos (graphic photos may be redacted), all evidence, audio recordings, all police reports and supplemental police reports.”

Request No. 3: “Any and all DOCUMENTS regarding a criminal investigation of JUSTIN ANTHONY SELL, DOB 02/19/1986, regarding child abuse and/or child sexual abuse and/or molestation and/or sexual harassment and/or sexual abuse and misconduct.”

Request No. 4: “Any and all DOCUMENTS in the criminal case investigative file regarding the investigation into JUSTIN ANTHONY SELL (DOB: 02/19/1986), sexually assaulting and molesting minor students at Dos Pueblos High School, including but not limited to, all recorded statements, all recorded interviews, all video interviews, all videos (explicit videos may be redacted to remove body parts), photographs, all statements, all witness statements, all text messages, all social media messages, all text messages, all electronic evidence, all photos (graphic photos may be redacted), all evidence, audio recordings, all police reports and supplemental police reports.”

Request No. 5: “Any and all DOCUMENTS in the criminal case investigative file regarding the investigation into JUSTIN ANTHONY SELL (DOB: 02/19/1986), sexually assaulting and molesting minor students, including but not limited to, all recorded statements, all recorded interviews, all video interviews, all videos (explicit videos may be redacted to remove body parts), photographs, all statements, all witness statements, all text messages, all social media messages, all text messages, all electronic evidence, all photos (graphic photos may be redacted), all evidence, audio recordings, all police reports and supplemental police reports.”

Request No. 6: “Any and all DOCUMENTS regarding a criminal investigation of JUSTIN ANTHONY SELL (DOB: 02/19/1986) regarding child abuse and/or child sexual abuse and/or molestation and/or sexual harassment and/or sexual abuse and misconduct.”

Santa Barbara District Attorney’s Office:

Request No. 1: “Any and all DOCUMENTS, investigative reports, police reports, supplemental reports, witness statements, criminal case records, pleadings, and evidence relating to People of the State of California vs Justin A. Sell (DOB 02/19/1986), Santa Barbara County Criminal Case no. 1441938.”

Request No. 2: “Any and all DOCUMENTS, investigative reports, police reports, supplemental reports, witness statements, criminal case records, pleadings, and evidence relating to People of the State of California vs Justin A. Sell (DOB 02/19/1986), Santa Barbara County Criminal Case no. 1429502.”

Sell’s arguments are: (1) the “subpoenas are overbroad in that they include the production of records that are not relevant to any issue in this lawsuit, nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence,” (2) the “subpoenas seek information that invades Sell’s privacy rights,” and (3) plaintiffs are seeking documents that have no purpose but to portray Sell in a falsely negative light. (Notice of Motion, p. 2, ll. 14-21.)

To the extent that Sell argues that reports and investigations, that did not result in criminal charges or convictions, unfairly create a false inference of Sell’s character, these concerns are premature. The court is not concerned with admissibility at trial at this point. This is discovery. All that is required is that the information sought be reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, not that the evidence itself be admissible.

Also: Sell refers to the requests as “an impermissible fishing expedition.” (Motion, p. 6, ll. 22-24.) “([C]ontrary to popular belief), fishing expeditions are permissible in some cases. [Citation.]’ ” [Citations.]” (Cruz v. Superior Court (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 646, 653–654.)

In opposition to Sell’s arguments, plaintiffs implicitly acknowledge that the requests invoke some of Sell’s privacy rights. Plaintiffs also point out that Sell ignores the fact that this action is not only against Sell, but also brought against SBUSD. By way of his reply brief, Sell almost entirely ignores this fact and continues to argue based solely on the allegations against himself.

As noted above, the allegations against SBUSD include: (1) The fourth cause of action for negligent hiring, supervision, training, and retention; (2) The fifth cause of action for failure to report suspected child abuse; and (3) The sixth cause of action for negligent supervision of a minor.

“Because of the special relationship a school district and its employees have with the students, the duty of care owed by school personnel includes “ ‘the duty to use reasonable measures to protect students from foreseeable injury at the hands of third parties acting negligently or intentionally.’ ” [Citation.] A “ ‘school district is liable ‘ “for the negligence of supervisory or administrative personnel who allegedly knew, or should have known’ of the foreseeable risk to students of sexual abuse by an employee and nevertheless hired, retained, and/or inadequately supervised that employee. [Citation.]’ ” (Ratcliff v. The Roman Catholic Archbishop of Los Angeles (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 982, 1007.)

“Responsibility for the safety of public school students is not borne solely by instructional personnel. School principals and other supervisory employees, to the extent their duties include overseeing the educational environment and the performance of teachers and counselors, also have the responsibility of taking reasonable measures to guard pupils against harassment and abuse from foreseeable sources, including any teachers or counselors they know or have reason to know are prone to such abuse.” (C.A. v. William S. Hart Union High School Dist. (2012) 53 Cal.4th 861, 871.)

Here, not only are there allegations in the complaint (as set forth above), but plaintiffs have provided deposition testimony that Sell engaged in all sorts of inappropriate behavior that might have alerted SBUSD personnel, including the DPHS principal, that Sell was prone to commit harassment and abuse against minor students.

“The state Constitution expressly grants Californians a right of privacy. [Citation.] Protection of informational privacy is the provision’s central concern. [Citation.] In [Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1], we established a framework for evaluating potential invasions of privacy. The party asserting a privacy right must establish a legally protected privacy interest, an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in the given circumstances, and a threatened intrusion that is serious. [Citation.] The party seeking information may raise in response whatever legitimate and important countervailing interests disclosure serves, while the party seeking protection may identify feasible alternatives that serve the same interests or protective measures that would diminish the loss of privacy. A court must then balance these competing considerations.” (Williams, supra, 3 Cal.5th 531at p. 552.)

The requests seek documents that are reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and the court has balanced the competing considerations of Sell’s right of privacy against plaintiffs’ countervailing interests of disclosure and finds that plaintiffs are entitled to the discovery requested. Plaintiffs’ right to the discovery outweighs any privacy rights Sell may have in the requested documents. However, as some protection, any documents produced in response to the subpoenas shall be subject to a protective order.