Tentative Ruling: Jane Doe vs Brett Williams et al
Case Number
25CV01213
Case Type
Hearing Date / Time
Fri, 03/20/2026 - 10:00
Nature of Proceedings
Motion to Quash; Motion to Compel
Tentative Ruling
- The hearing on plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to discovery from Article Student Living PM Services LLC is continued to April 24, 2026.
- The parties shall file either a further joint status report or separate reports regarding the status of the discovery disputes and any matters that remain for adjudication by the court, no later than April 10, 2026.
- Defendant Brett Williams’ motion to quash or limit the scope of deposition subpoena to Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Office is granted, in part, as follows:
- The subpoena is limited, as the parties agreed, to only require records related to: (1) sexual harassment; (2) sexual assault; (3) sexual misconduct; (4) sexual battery; and (5) battery.
- The subpoena is limited to release of records following Williams’ 18th birthday.
Background:
On February 25, 2025, plaintiff Jane Doe filed the complaint in this action asserting six causes of action against defendants Article Student Living PM Services LLC (ASL) and Brett Williams: (1) sexual harassment in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA, Gov. Code, § 12900 et seq.); (2) sex discrimination in violation of FEHA; (3) race discrimination in violation of FEHA; (4) failure to prevent harassment and discrimination in violation of FEHA; (5) retaliation in violation of FEHA; and (6) wrongful constructive termination in violation of public policy.
On March 28, 2025, ASL filed an answer to the complaint, generally denying the allegations thereof and asserting 37 affirmative defenses.
On June 2, 2025, plaintiff served on ASL her first sets of form interrogatories—general, form interrogatories—employment law, special interrogatories, and requests for production of documents. (Kenworthy decl., ¶ 2 & exhibit A.)
On July 21, 2025, ASL served its initial responses to the discovery requests. (Kenworthy decl., ¶ 3 & exhibit B.)
On August 15, 2025, the court entered its protective order on the stipulation of the parties regarding confidential information and documents.
Following a letter from counsel for plaintiff, on September 3, 2025, ASL served its verifications to its responses to the respective discovery. (Kenworthy decl., ¶¶ 4, 5 & exhibits C, D.)
On September 29, 2025, Williams filed an answer to the complaint, generally denying the allegations thereof and asserting 11 affirmative defenses.
Following further meet and confer efforts, on October 3, 2025, ASL served amended responses to the discovery. (Kenworthy decl., ¶¶ 6, 7 & exhibits D, F.) There was no further meet and confer efforts made. (Smith decl., ¶ 11.)
On October 21, 2025, plaintiff filed a motion to compel to obtain orders:
“1. Compelling [ASL] to provide further, verified, code-compliant responses to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories – General, Set One, Nos. 12.1, 12.2, and 12.3; Special Interrogatories, Set One, Nos. 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12 13, and 14; Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, Nos. 1 through 21;
“2. Compelling [ASL] to produce all documents responsive to those requests; and
“3. Requiring [ASL] to serve a privilege log for any responsive documents withheld on the basis of privilege.”
The motion is opposed by ASL.
On February 20, 2026, the discovery motion(s) were continued to March 20, 2026, plaintiff was ordered to pay additional filing fees, the parties were ordered to meet and confer, and the parties were ordered to file a report, or reports, identifying matters that have been resolved and matters that remain in dispute.
On March 9, 2026, ASL and plaintiff filed a joint report regarding the motion indicating that the parties have resolved all disputes, that ASL agreed to provide further responses, and requested the hearing date be continued.
On February 6, 2026, Williams filed the present motion to quash or in the alternative limit the scope of a deposition subpoena to Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Office.
Plaintiff opposes the motion.
Analysis:
Motion to Compel Further Responses to Discovery Requests
The motion, or motions, to compel further responses to discovery were initially set for hearing on February 20, 2026. Due to mostly procedural issues that required attention by the parties, the hearing was continued to March 20, 2026. As part of the ruling, the parties were ordered to further meet and confer, as well as file either a joint report or separate reports identifying matters that have been resolved by the further meet and confer efforts and matters that remain in need of adjudication by the court.
On March 9, 2026, the parties filed a joint report regarding the motion(s) to compel. By way of the report, the parties indicated that there was additional meet and confer regarding the dispute, and that the parties have resolved all the disputed issues, and that ASL has agreed to provide further amended responses by March 30, 2026. The parties requested that the court continue the hearing to a date on or after April 20, 2026, and set an April 9, 2026 deadline for the parties to submit a further joint report. The court will do as requested by the parties.
Motion to Quash or Limit Deposition Subpoena
Williams seeks an order to quash or, alternatively, limit the scope of the deposition for production of business records issued to the Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Office seeking: “Any and all incident reports, police reports, offense reports, arrest reports, booking records, custody records, release records, supplemental reports, narratives, and calls for service, including CAD logs, dispatch records, and call summaries, created, maintained, or kept by the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Office from January 1, 2000 through the present, in which Brett Williams (Date of Birth: May 11, 1996) is identified as a suspect, arrestee, detained person, accused person, or subject of an investigation.”
“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 opposition to the motion, plaintiff represents: “The parties have already significantly narrowed the subpoena through meet and confer efforts. The subpoena now seeks only records related to: (1) sexual harassment; (2) sexual assault; (3) sexual misconduct; (4) sexual battery; and (5) battery.”
By way of his reply, Williams acknowledges the agreement to limit the subpoena.
The only remaining issue pertains to the discoverability of Williams’ juvenile records.
“Juvenile delinquency case files and a living child’s juvenile dependency case file may be obtained or inspected, and information from the file may be disclosed, only in accordance with sections 827, 827.12, and 828. The file may not be obtained or inspected by civil or criminal subpoena, and the information from the file may not be disclosed by testimony without a juvenile court order. With the exception of those persons permitted to inspect juvenile case files without court authorization under sections 827 and 828, and the specific requirements for accessing juvenile case files provided in section 827.12(a)(1), every person or agency seeking to inspect or obtain the juvenile delinquency case file or a living child’s dependency case file must petition the court for authorization using Petition for Access to Juvenile Delinquency Case File or a Living Child’s Juvenile Dependency Case File (form JV-570). A chief probation officer seeking juvenile court authorization to access and provide data from case files in the possession of the probation department under section 827.12(a)(2) must comply with the requirements in (d) of this rule.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.552(a), italics added.)
The requirements for obtaining juvenile records, their confidentiality, and who may seek them, is set forth in Welfare and Institutions Code section 827 et seq.
Plaintiff, while acknowledging that she “does not dispute that Lorenza P. v. Superior Court (1988) 197 Cal.App.3d 607 requires civil litigants to petition the juvenile court for access to juvenile law enforcement records,” and acknowledging that she has petitioned the juvenile court, still argues that the motion to quash or modify should be denied. (Opp. p. 7, ll. 8-20.)
Plaintiff then, seemingly acknowledging that she is prohibited from seeking the juvenile records by way of a civil subpoena, requests that the court stay production of the juvenile records pending the juvenile court’s ruling on her petition. However, the court must modify the subpoena. The exclusive means of obtaining juvenile records is through the juvenile court. Civil subpoenas are specifically precluded as a means of obtaining juvenile records.
“A juvenile court has broad and exclusive authority to determine whether, and to what extent, to grant access to confidential juvenile records.” (R.S. v. Superior Court (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 1049, 1055.)
The subpoena will be modified to exclude juvenile records.