Your recipients will receive an email with this envelope shortly and will be able to access it on trellis. You can always see your envelopes by clicking the Inbox on the top right hand corner.
Your subscription has successfully been upgraded.
“The Education Code provides that student records are ordinarily not available to the general public. (Rim of the World Unified School Dist. v. Superior Court (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 1393, 1396.) “‘A school district is not authorized to permit access to pupil records to any person without written parental consent or under judicial order’ except in certain situations not relevant here.” (Id.) “California law defines ‘pupil records’ as ‘any item of information directly related to an identifiable pupil, other than directory information, which is maintained by a school district....’” (BRV, Inc. v. Superior Court (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 742, 752.)
“As with California law, the federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) provides for the privacy of education records.(Rim of the World Unified School Dist. v. Superior Court, supra, 104 Cal.App.4th at p. 1397.)
‘Education records’ are defined as documents which ‘contain information directly related to a student’ or ‘are maintained by an educational agency or institution....’” (Id.)
In addition to the right of privacy reflected in these statutes, the right of privacy set forth in article I, § 1 of the California Constitution also protects a person’s educational records. (Porten v. University of San Francisco (1976) 64 Cal.App.3d 825, 832.) As a result, plaintiff’ right of privacy protects disclosure of her high school records. (Id.)
“When the right to discovery conflicts with a privileged right, the court is required to carefully balance the right of privacy with the need for discovery.” (Harris v. Superior Court (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 661, 665.) “The proponent of discovery of constitutionally protected material has the burden of making a threshold showing that the evidence sought is ‘directly relevant’ to the claim or defense.” (Id.)
The right to privacy is expressly guaranteed by Article 1, § 1 of the California Constitution and, as interpreted by the courts, extends to various types of personal information. See, John B. v. Superior Court (2006) 38 Cal.4th 1177, 1198 (a litigant may invoke the constitutional right to privacy as justification for refusing to disclose personal information). Privacy protections are also provided by Education Code §§ 49076 and 49077, which require written consent or a court order before school administrators can disclose student information. Here, Tyler has asserted his privacy rights with regard to his school records, including all related medical records, psychological records, and disciplinary records. In their separate motion, Fourmy and Granziera have asserted their right to privacy with regard to the same records. The parents contend that any discussions they had with school administrators regarding Tyler’s “behavior, conduct, performance, discipline, attendance, and truancy,” and any “parent/teacher conference records and reports” directly implicate their privacy rights.
California law defines “pupil records” as “any item of information directly related to an identifiable pupil, other than directory information, which is maintained by a school district....” (Ed.Code, Sec. 49061(b).) FERPA defines “education records” in nearly identical terms. (20 U.S.C. Sec. 1232g (a)(4)(A).)
Implementing regulations promulgated by the state Department of Education further explain the term: “ ‘Pupil Record’ means information relative to an individual pupil gathered within or without the school system and maintained within the school system, regardless of the physical form in which it is maintained. Essential in this definition is the idea that any information which is maintained for the purpose of second party review is considered a pupil record.” (Cal.Code Regs., tit. 5, § 430, subd. (d).)”
“(a) A school district shall not permit access to pupil records to a person without written parental consent or under judicial order except as set forth in this section and as permitted by Part 99 (commencing with § 99.1) of Title 34 of the Code of Federal Regulations.”
Evidence Code § 49076 (c) provides:
“(c)(1) A person or party who is not permitted access to pupil records pursuant to subdivision (a) or (b) may request access to pupil records as provided for in paragraph (2).
(2) A local educational agency or other person or party who has received pupil records, or information from pupil records, may release the records or information to a person or party identified in paragraph (1) without the consent of the pupil's parent or guardian pursuant to § 99.31(b) of Title 34 of the Code of Federal Regulations, if the records or information are deidentified, which requires the removal of all personally identifiable information, if the disclosing local educational agency or other person or party has made a reasonable determination that a pupil's identity is not personally identifiable, whether through single or multiple releases, and has taken into account other pertinent reasonably available information.”
In BRV, Inc. v. Super. Ct. (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 742 the court considered whether the documents constituted “pupil records” under the statute, and observed:
California law defines “pupil records” as “any item of information directly related to an identifiable pupil, other than directory information, which is maintained by a school district....”
(Id. at 752 citing Ed. Code, Sec. 49061(b) and stating FERPA defines “education records” in nearly identical terms. (20 U.S.C. Sec. 1232g,(a)(4)(A).).
The court of appeal concluded that the investigator’s report did not fit within the cases construing “pupil records” stating in relevant part:
“Certainly the language of the statute, though broadly written, does not encompass every document that relates to a student in any way and is kept by the school in any fashion. (Id. at 754.) “A pupil record is one that ‘directly relates’ to a student and is ‘maintained’ by the school.” Id. “We agree with the Supreme Court that the statute was directed at institutional records maintained in the normal course of business by a single, central custodian of the school. Typical of such records would be registration forms, class schedules, grade transcripts, discipline reports, and the like.”
(Id.)
“For all of the above reasons, we conclude the Davis report and its accompanying summaries were not pupil records within the meaning of Education Code §§ 49061 and 49076.” (BRV, Inc. v. Superior Court (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 742, 754-755.)
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. ( Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 552.)
ERIC JONES VS LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
20STCV43019
Dec 20, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Dos Pueblos High School.
JOHN DOE VS SANTA BARBARA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT ET AL
21CV01542
Dec 14, 2021
Santa Barbara County, CA
DISCUSSION: There is “a framework for evaluating potential invasions of privacy.” (Williams v. Superior Ct. (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 552 [citing Hill v. Nat'l Collegiate Athletic Assn., 7 Cal.4th 1, 35].) “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.” (Williams, 3 Cal.5th at p. 552.)
ZAMBRANO VS OM FITNESS LLC, ET AL.
22CV021396
Jan 04, 2024
Alameda County, CA
Scott objects to public disclosurenot discovery by plaintiffof his personnel records based on his right to 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. ( Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 552 ( Williams ).)
JANE C.R. DOE VS LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, A CALIFORNIA PUBLIC ENTITY, ET AL.
22STCV13174
Oct 03, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Then, the requesting party may show which 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. ( Ibid. ) In this case, parties do not dispute there is a right to privacy in a minor students school records.
L.R., A MINOR BY AND THROUGH HIS GUARDIAN AD LITEM JENNIFER BUTLER VS SUSAN AROZLA, ET AL.
21STCV01296
Dec 13, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
Because plaintiff’s work experience is limited, defendant argues that plaintiff’s high school records are relevant and outweigh any invasion of plaintiff’s privacy rights.
ELVIRA SEJA VS VIRGINIA MCCOOL
1403045
Mar 12, 2013
Santa Barbara County, CA
In the trial court, the school district successfully asserted it was immune from liability under Education Code section 44808. There have been no changes in that statute since it was enacted in 1976. The Fifth District Court of Appeal reversed summary judgment in favor of the school, citing Hoyem v. Manhattan Beach City School District (1978) 22 Cal. 3d 508, 517, fnt. 2: “That the ‘reasonable care’ exception in the statute is not accidental is clear from the legislative history.
LOGOLUSO V. CUSD
15CECG00077
Sep 27, 2016
Fresno County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any complaints made by anyone RELATING TO SEXUAL MISCONDUCT at Norwalk High School for the time period of January 1, 2013 to the present. ( Plaintiff will accept redacted copies of said DOCUMENTS to protect the privacy of individuals who are not a party to this action ). · No. 18.
JOHN CM DOE, ET AL. VS NORWALK UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL.
19STCV10390
Jan 28, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Defendant Van Duyne’s motions to quash subpoenas (re: Whittier Union High School and Bonita Unified School District) are DENIED. No sanctions. Defendant Van Duyne moves to quash plaintiff’s subpoenas duces tecum for records claiming they are not relevant and violates his privacy rights. Here, defendant Van Duyne contends that the subpoenas seek irrelevant records belonging to a subsequent employer.
JANE DOE VS COVINA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT ET AL
BC654038
Mar 11, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
The California Supreme Court has described the manner to address privacy concerns in the context of discovery disputes as follows: 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.
DOE VS GROSSMONT UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT
37-2022-00046947-CU-PO-CTL
Feb 02, 2024
San Diego County, CA
ARGUMENTS On May 26, 2023, Plaintiff served requests for production on Defendant, Los Angeles Unified School Districts (LAUSD), of documents concerning insurance policies covering Plaintiffs claims and the personnel file of Ira Wright. Defendant objected on grounds of relevance and privacy of its former employee. In opposition, LAUSD argues that the employment and personnel records of Defendant, Ira Lindsay Wright, is protected from disclosure by privacy.
JANE DOE, AN INDIVIDUAL VS DOE #1, A PUBLIC ENTITY, ET AL.
22CMCV00240
Nov 28, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Where the right to privacy is asserted as a protection against discovery, the person raising the objection must establish a legally protected privacy interest, an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in the given circumstances, and a threatened intrusion that is serious. (Williams v. Super. Ct. (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 552.)
S. B. VS. OCEAN VIEW SCHOOL DISTRICT
30-2018-01029302-CU-PO-CJC
Nov 04, 2019
Orange County, CA
Case Summary At essence, this is a putative class action for invasion of privacy. In this matter, Plaintiffs seek to represent female students who attended Los Osos High School, located within Defendant School District (District), during the time period that Defendant Riden (Riden), who was a locker room attendant and assistant coach, placed at least one hidden camera in the girls’ bathroom.
2128630
Jan 30, 2023
San Bernardino County, CA
Mummy’s educator disciplinary records against his right of privacy the balance tips in favor of disclosure. The allegations of the Complaint accuse Mr. Mummy of very inappropriate conduct with a student at school and that defendant School District was liable for such conduct under several theories of liability. Teachers appear to have little, if any, reasonable expectation of privacy in disciplinary records maintained by the credentialing enforcement arm of the Executive Branch of the State.
DOE V. EL DORADO UNION HIGH SCHOOL DIST.
PC-20180052
Jul 12, 2018
El Dorado County, CA
Pappalardo was a former employee of Glendale Unified School District, and Clark Junior High School was a junior high school operated by and under the control of GUSD. Plaintiff met Pappalardo when she was in the 9 th grade at Clark Junior High School.
JANE DOE VS ROE 1, A PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT
21STCV11367
Aug 26, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
The parents contend that any discussions they had with school administrators regarding Tyler’s “behavior, conduct, performance, discipline, attendance, and truancy,” and any “parent/teacher conference records and reports” directly implicate their privacy rights. Defendants clearly have privacy interests in Tyler’s school records and in matters discussed with school administrators. However, the right to privacy does not provide absolute protection against disclosure of personal information.
WOLFGANG SCHULZ ET AL VS TYLER FOURMY ET AL
1373884
Feb 08, 2012
Santa Barbara County, CA
Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School Dist. (2012), 202 Cal.App.4th 1250, 1261–1262, fns. omitted.
ROBERT KITTLE VS CABRILLO COLLEGE
22CV02266
Jan 13, 2023
Santa Cruz County, CA
Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School Dist. (2012), 202 Cal.App.4th 1250, 1261–1262, fns. omitted.
ROBERT KITTLE VS CABRILLO COLLEGE
22CV02266
Jan 12, 2023
Santa Cruz County, CA
Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School Dist. (2012), 202 Cal.App.4th 1250, 1261–1262, fns. omitted.
ROBERT KITTLE VS CABRILLO COLLEGE
22CV02266
Jan 11, 2023
Santa Cruz County, CA
Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School Dist. (2012), 202 Cal.App.4th 1250, 1261–1262, fns. omitted.
ROBERT KITTLE VS CABRILLO COLLEGE
22CV02266
Jan 10, 2023
Santa Cruz County, CA
And so, absent discovery of what the school did know through a review of records, a sexual assault victim would be completely hamstrung in his or her efforts to establish a "traditional" school sexual assault case which does not involve the special Jennifer C. circumstances. Meanwhile, the affected students do have privacy rights which need to be protected and honored.
SARA THOMAS VS. VENTURA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
56-2008-00324212-CU-PO-VTA
Nov 10, 2009
Ventura County, CA
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.” ( Williams, supra, 3 Cal.5th at p. 552.)
ANDREA POMA VS BONITA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
21STCV13266
Aug 03, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Other Employment
After balancing plaintiff’s right to privacy against the defendant’s right to discover facts necessary to defend the claim, the court finds that the defendant’s right to discovery outweighs plaintiff’s right to privacy. By filing this lawsuit plaintiff has placed his alleged learning disability in issue. Plaintiff has testified in deposition that he was diagnosed with a learning disability in school many years ago and has had no treatment since that time.
ULLOA VS CONAM MANAGEMENT CORP
30-2018-00977401-CU-WT-CJC
Jul 19, 2019
Orange County, CA
(“Plaintiff”), a minor, by Defendant Brian Davis (“Davis”), an employee at an after-school program ran by Defendants Los Angeles Conservation Corps, Inc. (“LACC”) and Los Angeles Unified School District (“LAUSD”). At the time of the assault, Plaintiff was 15 years old. Plaintiff alleges that beginning in March 2017, Plaintiff was regularly volunteering to assist younger students with their studies at her younger sister’s elementary school, Normandy Avenue Elementary School (the “School”).
AZALEA C VS LOS ANGELES CONSERVATION CORPS INC ET AL
BC712075
Aug 31, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
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. (Id. at pp. 35–37, 26 Cal.Rptr.2d 834, 865 P.2d 633.)
MARIA SERRATO ET AL VS PI KAPPA PHI FRATERNITY INC ET AL
BC586769
Feb 09, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
Viewpoint has not raised any other privacy interest furthered by its request. But Plaintiff Jane Doe 2 has filed an opposition to Viewpoint’s request, and asks that the facts contained in the record be open to the public. (Opposition p. 2-3.) That is, the person whose privacy interests are affected by the request — indeed the only privacy interest that Viewpoint has proposed — objects to Viewpoint’s request.
JANE DOE VS ROE 1 ET AL
BC577990
Oct 06, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
National Collegiate Athletic Assn. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1, the Supreme Court held that in evaluating potential invasions of privacy, the party asserting a privacy right must establish a legally protected privacy interest, and objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in the given circumstances and a threatened intrusion that is serious. Defendant has not met this burden.
JANE B A DOE VS SOUTH PASADENA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT ET AL
BC640307
Feb 02, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
privacy concerns.”
JANE B M DOE ET AL VS EL MONTE UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT ET
BC619299
Jun 05, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
Privacy The facts requested do not constitute a serious invasion of privacy, and Plaintiffs need for the information outweighs any privacy concerns, which can also be addressed by a protective order. (See Williams v. Sup. Ct. (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 552; Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1, 38.) c.
KRISTINA TURPIN VS LEARNING WITH A DIFFERENCE, INC.
21STCV07398
Feb 21, 2024
Los Angeles County, CA
'A school district is not authorized to permit access to pupil records to any person without written parental consent or under judicial order' ..." Rim of the World Unified School Dist. v. Superior Court (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 1393, 1396, citing Ed.C. §49076 ["A school district shall not permit access to pupil records to a person without written parental consent or under judicial order." Ed.C. §49076(a)] The Family Educational and Privacy Rights Act recognizes a right of privacy in student records.
GREEN VS CAJON VALLEY UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT
37-2018-00044230-CU-CR-CTL
Aug 22, 2019
San Diego County, CA
Other
Intellectual Property
The Petitioner argues that his privacy interests will be violated if the report if released. The Regents acknowledges that Petitioner has a privacy in interest in that record. However, the Regency asserts that Petitioner's privacy interest is outweighed by the strong public policy supporting transparency in government and public interest in disclosure of the record. Authorities: Pursuant to Gov.
POLEQUAPTEWA VS THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
30-2017-00906021-CU-WM-CJC
May 05, 2017
Orange County, CA
Defendants’ request #48 seeks “Any and all documents evidencing the date Plaintiff completed school at Calaveras High School in Milpitas.” This request seeks some relevant information but is overbroad because it includes irrelevant pictures of graduation ceremonies, transcripts of grades, and like material.
FCS057724
May 10, 2023
Solano County, CA
As to privacy, the court has conducted the required balancing, and the court finds that the ascertainment of truth is an important countervailing interest that overrides Defendant’s privacy objection. Based on the above, the court DENIES Defendant’s (Michael Cardoza) Motion to Quash Plaintiffs’ Deposition Subpoena for Production of Business Records to United States Truck Driving School (filed on 8-21-18) The court does not award sanctions.
HUEY V. CARDOZA
30-2017-00932914-CU-PA-CJC
Oct 23, 2018
Orange County, CA
PASADENA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al., Defendants. Case No.: BC704012 Hearing Date: February 7, 2020 [TENTATIVE] order RE: Plaintiff’s Motions to compel further responses Plaintiff Miguel Urrutia (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against the Pasadena Unified School District and several employees (“Defendants”) after he was assaulted by a fellow student.
MIGUEL URRUTIA VS PASADENA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT ET AL
BC704012
Feb 07, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Fourth Cause of Action for Invasion of Privacy A claim for invasion of privacy must be based on 1) a legally protected privacy interest; 2) a reasonable expectation of privacy under the circumstances; and 3) defendant's serious invasion of privacy. Moreno v. Hanford Sentinel, Inc. (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 1125, 1129. Defendants contend that Plaintiffs cannot allege a claim for invasion of privacy based solely on disclosure of their daughter’s name because “the right of privacy is a purely personal one.”
DISNEY, TIM VS CAMELOT KIDS CHILD DEVELOPMENT
15K12272
Oct 06, 2016
Elaine Lu or Yolanda Orozco
Los Angeles County, CA
Rather, the motion explains Petitioner’s position that the Unify subpoena invades his and his wife’s constitutional right to financial privacy. Respondent’s position on Petitioner’s privacy objections is unclear. (See Oppo. 9:22 [terse reference to Petitioner’s privacy objections].) Respondent should elaborate its position at the hearing. Subject to oral argument, the court analyzes Petitioner’s privacy objections as follows.
ARMANDO GOMEZ VS LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
21STCP01639
Aug 26, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Administrative
Writ
Los AngeIes Unified School Dist. (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 123 the court observed: “The law regarding the duty of supervision on school premises is very, very well established. “It is the duty of the school authorities to supervise at all times the conduct of the children on the school grounds and to enforce those rules and regulations necessary to their protection. [Citations.]
DOE V. THORPE
SCV-260923
Sep 19, 2018
Sonoma County, CA
As to the third-party privacy right objection, the Court finds that the privacy right of the third parties can be adequately protected by the redaction of any identifying information, as pointed out in Lopez. In request No. 40, moving Plaintiff requested “[t]he SCHOOL yearbook for each year that YOU assigned SALES to coach at the SCHOOL.” SAUSD did not produce any of the responsive documents.
CRONSTEDT V. JONES
30-2017-00958493-CU-PO-CJC
May 13, 2019
Orange County, CA
Plaintiff has not explained how documents concerning any police involvement at the school for the last five years is relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. For example, reports of break-ins or drug dealing at the school are not relevant to the alleged assault here. Likewise, Plaintiff has not shown that all assaults and batteries at the school in the last five years are discoverable, especially given the other students’ privacy rights.
LUISA JOHNSON, ET AL. VS SOUTH PASADENA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
19STCV08150
Feb 20, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Plaintiff asserts he attended a high school in Moreno Valley Unified School District (“District”). The school allegedly knew that Plaintiff was to ride the bus home on November 19, 2021. Plaintiff contends that school personnel were aware that Plaintiff did not get on the bus and instead walked away from the bus. No one from the District followed Plaintiff, informed Plaintiff’s family of this fact, or contacted the police. This resulted in Plaintiff getting lost.
ENRIQUEZ VS MORENO VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
CVRI2203498
Feb 07, 2024
Riverside County, CA
The privacy objections are overruled. The information called for in this request does not implicate the privacy interest of any third party, and even if it did, the need for the information would substantially outweigh any privacy interest. The interrogatory seeks information that is directly relevant here. The court specifically overrules the objection under FERPA, and orders that the interrogatory be answered fully.
EDWIN NOLASCO VS LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL.
20STCV02062
May 13, 2021
12/14/2022
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
ORDER RE: DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO CCP § 2017.220; MOTION GRANTED April 1, 2016, Plaintiff Janet Roe (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants David Park (“Park”), Hacienda La Puente Unified School District (“School District”), and Cheli McReynolds (“McReynolds”) for negligence per se and battery as to Park and negligent supervision as to School District and McReynolds.
JANET ROE VS DAVID PARK ET AL
BC615789
Apr 11, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
Thus, discovery further information regarding Plaintiffs cognitive abilities in high school prior to the incident would be relevant to Defendants evaluation of the case. Consequently, the Court finds that Plaintiffs privacy claim is unpersuasive. While the subpoenas seek all records, Plaintiff fails to explain how they constitute a fishing expedition.
JOHNNY GARCIA VS MYT HOME HEALTH CARE, INC.
21STCV09219
Dec 13, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
Therefore, the likelihood that her high school and college grades will lead to the discovery of admissible evidence pertinent to this claim is too low to justify the invasion of privacy.
KIMBERLEY OCADIZ VS CYNTHIA LOPEZ
21STCV09963
Dec 17, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
(D) Invasion of Privacy Almasoudi’s fourth cause of action is for invasion of privacy against both Terrence and Aaron. The Calbows do not argue that Almasoudi does not state a cause of action against Aaron. “While invasion of privacy takes several forms, ‘the tort of intrusion into private places, conversations or matter is perhaps the one that best captures the common understanding of an “invasion of privacy.”
FADIA ALMASOUDI V. EF INTERNATIONAL LANGUAGE SCHOOLS, INC., ET AL.
15CV02343
Jan 05, 2016
Santa Barbara County, CA
CONCLUSION AND ORDER Therefore, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs motions to quash subpoenas for Chaffey High School and Chaffey Adult School. Plaintiff to provide notice and file a proof of service of such. [1] Plaintiff asserts that confidential personnel files are protected but does not explain whether education files are included in that category. (Motion, 6.) Nonetheless, the parties appear to agree that Plaintiff has a privacy interest in his educational records.
FERNANDO CERVANTES VS POSTMATES, LLC, A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.
22STCV15897
Nov 17, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Here, Plaintiff is seeking personnel records, private communications of nonparties and information on individual school district employees or officials. Defendant objects on ground that the requests violate the named individual’s rights to privacy. Plaintiff has not provided sufficient reason for invading the privacy rights of the individuals.
LAZZARINI VS ALVORD UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
RIC1904220
Sep 21, 2021
Riverside County, CA
(“Erskine”), Mary Arens (“Arens”), and Oscar McBride (“McBride”) (collectively “Defendants”) seek an order from the Court quashing the Deposition Subpoena for Production of Business Records (“Subpoena”) served by Plaintiff Claire Menjivar (“Plaintiff”) on Third-Party Servite High School (“Servite”) on the grounds: (1) Plaintiff seeks to obtain confidential information in violation of Defendant McBride’s right to privacy, and the privacy right of third parties, as to his former employment records; (2) the Subpoena
MENJIVAR VS. ERSKINIE LAW GROUP, P.C.
30-2019-01098849
Mar 04, 2021
Orange County, CA
Galt Joint Union Elementary School District 01/23/2024 Hearing on Motion to Compel Production in Department 53 As to the scope of the requests, the Court finds it especially overbroad given the employees’ right to privacy as to their personnel files. “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.”
34-2023-00335839-CU-PO-GDS
Jan 22, 2024
Sacramento County, CA
In California the right to privacy is guaranteed in the State Constitution. California Constitution, Article I, Section I provides: “All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.” This constitutional right of privacy is not absolute; it may be abridged when there is a “compelling” and opposing state interest, such as the need for discovery in legal proceedings. (See Board of Trustees v.
M D VS LOS ANGELES COUNTY OFFICE OF EDUCATION ET AL
BC574425
Mar 21, 2017
Brian S. Currey or John A. Slawson
Los Angeles County, CA
In California, the right to privacy is guaranteed in the State Constitution. California Constitution, Art. I, § I provides: “All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.” This constitutional right of privacy is not absolute; it may be abridged when there is a “compelling” and opposing state interest, such as the need for discovery in legal proceedings. (See Board of Trustees v.
M W VS COMPTON UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
BC635938
Sep 28, 2017
Steven D. Blades or Brian S. Currey
Los Angeles County, CA
But City has not made that showing as to other aspects of Plaintiffs educational records, such as school discipline, school medical records, staff comments, attendance records, and admission records. Plaintiff has not identified any feasible alternatives that would serve the same interests and diminish the loss of privacy.
SAMUEL STRINGER VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL.
19STCV33735
Feb 16, 2024
Los Angeles County, CA
Plaintiff has an overriding privacy interest. The judicial use of Doe plaintiffs to protect legitimate privacy rights has gained wide currency, particularly given the rapidity and ubiquity of disclosures over the World Wide Web. ( Doe v. Lincoln Unified School Dist. (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 758, 766.) Plaintiffs may use a fictitious name when necessary to protect their privacy rights, including in actions alleging sexual assault. (See Doe v. City of Los Angeles (2007) 42 Cal.4th 531; Doe v.
V. B. VS DOE 1
22STCV20461
Jan 13, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Plaintiff has an overriding privacy interest. The judicial use of Doe plaintiffs to protect legitimate privacy rights has gained wide currency, particularly given the rapidity and ubiquity of disclosures over the World Wide Web. ( Doe v. Lincoln Unified School Dist. (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 758, 766.) Plaintiffs may use a fictitious name when necessary to protect their privacy rights, including in actions alleging sexual assault. (See Doe v. City of Los Angeles (2007) 42 Cal.4th 531; Doe v.
W. G. VS DOE 1
22STCV19787
Jan 13, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment records are generally covered by the constitutional right of privacy. (Board of Trustees v. Superior Court (1981) 119 Cal.App.3d 516, 528, disapproved on other grounds in Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531 (“Williams”).) “[T]he right to privacy protects the individual’s reasonable expectation of privacy against a serious invasion.” (Pioneer Electronics (USA), Inc. v. Superior Court (2007) 40 Cal.4th 360, 370.)
A. VS RIVERSIDE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
CVRI2204657
Jan 09, 2024
Riverside County, CA
LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL.
JANE DOE VS LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL.
22VECV01431
Oct 05, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Whatever their common denominator, privacy interests are best assessed separately and in context. Just as the right to privacy is not absolute, privacy interests do not encompass all conceivable assertions of individual rights.
Z., A MINOR BY AND THROUGH HIS GUARDIAN AD LITEM, BARRY POZNICK P., ET AL. VS MANHATTAN BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL.
19STCV25462
Feb 16, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
FACTUAL BACKGROUND: Plaintiffs Jane Doe and John Doe, minors appearing through their guardians at litem, allege that while they were students at defendant Miramonte Elementary School, in defendant Mountain View School District, they were sexually abused, molested and harassed by defendant Joseph Baldenebro, who was employed by the District and assigned to teach at the school.
JANE DOE ET AL VS MOUNTAIN VIEW SCHOOL DISTRICT ET AL
BC712514
Feb 07, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Thus, “a school would not be subject to sanctions for disclosure of education records covered by FERPA when such disclosure was made pursuant to a judicial order. Ragusa v. Malverne Union Free School Dist. (2008) 549 F.Supp.2d 288, 292-93. The relevant inquiry then is whether Plaintiff has met her burden to show that her interest in obtaining the requested records outweighs the relevant privacy interests. Id., at 293. The Court finds that Plaintiff has met that burden.
JANE JS DOE ET AL VS LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT ET
BC568601
Aug 17, 2016
Los Angeles County, CA
International High School need not provide any further responses to interrogatories 1-4 and 15-18 because there is no discovery relevance for the information sought in those interrogatories beyond what International High School has provided and/or the information sought in those interrogatories is protected by the right of privacy under the California Constitution and Mr. Knoop has not shown that the additional information he seeks is directly relevant to his claims.
LAURA ALBERT ET AL VS. INTERNATIONAL HIGH SCHOOL, ET AL
CGC14541111
Mar 22, 2017
San Francisco County, CA
The court notes plaintiff appears to have abandoned any claim, made during the meet and confer process, that these academic records are protected under the federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Rights Act. Pipeline Restoration Subpoena Defendants concede the subpoena is overbroad to the extent it includes requests for some items that improperly invade plaintiff’s right to privacy.
CANNON V. DONALDSON ()
30-2017-00909711-CU-PA-CJC
Oct 26, 2017
Orange County, CA
National Collegiate Athletic Assn. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1 – i.e., a serious invasion of Lopez's privacy rights. "Actionable invasions of privacy must be sufficiently serious in their nature, scope, and actual or potential impact to constitute an egregious breach of the social norms underlying the privacy right." Hill, supra, 7 Cal.4th at 37. Here, no evidence has been submitted by Lopez or the District defendants regarding the nature, scope, or impact of the disclosure.
MULLINS VS MAR VISTA HIGH SCHOOL
37-2021-00009606-CU-PO-CTL
May 05, 2023
San Diego County, CA
at 539 -543 [summarizing case law and concluding public high school teachers privacy interests in disposition letters outweighed publics minimal interest in matter]; see also Marken, supra, 202 Cal.App.4th at 1275-76 [balancing of interests weighed in favor of disclosure of investigation and disciplinary records of a public high school teacher].)
22STCP02191
22STCP02191
May 26, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Although Education Code section 49076 applies to school districts, it also shows the state’s recognition of a student’s right to privacy in her or his educational records. Based on the above, students have a right to privacy in their educational records. Respondent contends that the (AR), filed with the court under seal, contains student education records. (Johnson Decl, ¶ 2.)
DO V. FUGITT
30-2017-00916260-CU-WM-CJC
Mar 27, 2018
Orange County, CA
While the minor J.W. has a significant privacy interest in these 4 category of records, so too does plaintiff have a substantial interest in discovering relevant information regarding whether J.W. had assaulted, sexually or otherwise, any other persons prior to her alleged rape, which were known to defendant Roseville City School District.
P.C. V. ROSEVILLE CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT
S-CV-0044454
Dec 16, 2021
Placer County, CA
“When the right to discovery conflicts with a privileged right, the court is required to carefully balance the right of privacy with the need for discovery. [Citations.]” ( Harris v. Superior Court (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 661, 665.) Defendant San Gabriel Unified School District (“SGUSD”) contends that the requested information is relevant to plaintiff’s credibility concerning why she resigned from her prior position as a school psychologist for the Los Angeles County Office of Education (“LACOE”).
SARAH AXUME VS SAN GABRIEL UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL.
19STCV05768
Jul 20, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Plaintiffs also allege defendant directly retaliated against plaintiffs in April 2016 at the school board meeting. Defendant's argument that a plaintiff must first prove a valid complaint of sexual harassment is not a correct statement of the law. 3. Invasion of Privacy. The complaint alleges a cause of action for invasion of privacy only as to plaintiff Davis arising from Huerta’s alleged unauthorized access to Davis’s personnel file.
DAVIS VS. ANAHEIM CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT
30-2016-00873602-CU-JR-CXC
Nov 15, 2016
Orange County, CA
The California Supreme Court “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.
JO F VS LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT ET AL
BC646534
Dec 07, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
The Court notes that this issue may be amenable to an opt-in type letter as is some times requested in Elder Abuse cases to address the third party privacy concerns.
CASANDRA LIZBETH LOPEZ ET AL VS MONROVIA UNIFIED SCHOOL DIST
BC593990
Feb 24, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
The risk of retaliation and/or violating privacy rights outweighs the disclosure of names and identifies. The motion is denied.
PETITION OF BURGESS
37-2018-00035086-CU-WM-CTL
Jan 03, 2019
San Diego County, CA
Administrative
Writ
· [Referring to an e-mail marked as exhibit 10] It makes reference to – to Debbie Reed having a conversation with you, and Debbie Reed characterizes that conversation by saying – and with the school’s lawyer, but she says: “Neither the head of school nor the school lawyers (sic) agree.” And to put it in context, she says that Mikaela’s mom believes that Joe Koetters’s behavior was inappropriate with her daughter. “Neither the head of school nor the school’s lawyer” – “lawyers agree.”
JANE DOE VS ROE 1 ET AL
BC577990
Jul 05, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
(“Plaintiff”) through his guardian ad litem Anthony Fonseca filed the instant action against Los Angeles Unified School District (“LAUSD”), Rachael Kamiya (“Kamiya”), arising out of an incident that occurred while Plaintiff was attending school and under Defendants’ care and supervision.
A F VS LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT ET AL
BC720290
Jul 27, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Discrimination/Harass
Plaintiff argues that no privacy right is violated as there is no constitutional right to privacy held by an entity; that Cal. Evid.
JANE BOS DOE VS BARSTOW UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT A BUSINESS ENTITY OF FORM UNKNOWN, ET AL.
21AVCV00289
Nov 17, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
However, “. . . privacy interests may have to give way to [an] opponent’s right to a fair trial. Thus courts must balance the right of civil litigants to discover relevant facts against the privacy interests of persons subject to discovery.” (Vinson v. Superior Court (1987) 43 Cal.3d 833, 842.)
DEBORAH JOHNSON VS BERRI'S KITCHEN HOLLYWOOD, LLC
18STCV06731
Feb 06, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Plaintiff has not met her burden of showing that the seriousness of any prospective privacy invasion outweighs Defendant’s right to discover information relevant to her claimed injuries.
REYES VS A & Y PROPERTIES
CVRI2100291
Feb 15, 2023
Riverside County, CA
“The party claiming a violation of the constitutional right of privacy established in article I, section 1 of the California Constitution must establish (1) a legally protected privacy interest, (2) a reasonable expectation of privacy under the circumstances, and (3) a serious invasion of the privacy interest.” (Int’l Fed’n of Prof’l & Technical Eng’rs, Local 21, AFL-CIO v. Superior Court (2007) 42 Cal.4th 319, 338.)
RADHA JAGASIA VS DAGO TORRES ET AL
BC632722
Mar 02, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
Plaintiff Cintron testified in her deposition that she was diagnosed with depression in high school and a learning disability in elementary school. Records obtained by Defendants indicate Plaintiff experienced anxiety in college. Plaintiff Cintron argues that the information is protected by her privacy rights and her pre-accident baseline can be evaluated through less invasive means of discovery.
MAURINA MARILU CINTRON, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL. VS LOS ANGELES COUNTY, ET AL.
21STCV30736
Jan 03, 2024
Los Angeles County, CA
District and Apple Valley Unified School District.
DOE V. TOWNSEND
30-2019-01107164
Feb 17, 2021
Orange County, CA
Thus, “a school would not be subject to sanctions for disclosure of education records covered by FERPA when such disclosure was made pursuant to a judicial order. Ragusa v. Malverne Union Free School Dist. (2008) 549 F.Supp.2d 288, 292-93. The relevant inquiry then is whether Plaintiff has met her burden to show that her interest in obtaining the requested records outweighs the relevant privacy interests. Id., at 293.
JANE JS DOE ET AL VS LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT ET
BC568601
Sep 28, 2016
Los Angeles County, CA
This case arises out of an alleged series of escalating sexual batteries by a school official (Bassinne) upon a middle-school student back in 2010. Before the Court this day is plaintiff’s motion to compel the district to provide a further response a request for production of documents. The issue revolves around the school official’s personnel file, and relates to plaintiff’s tort claims for direct (supervision, retention) and vicarious (respondeat superior) negligence.
DOE G.F. V. SANTA ANA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
30-2018-01012506-CU-PO-CJC
Jun 27, 2019
Orange County, CA
Disclosure of that information would invade Toner’s third-party privacy rights in the details of his personnel file and his former employment. The court finds that Defendant High School has complied with the procedural requirements of CRC 2.551. The court also finds that the High School has shown that the 5 criteria set forth in CRC 2.550 (d) have been met.
OSCAR MCBRIDE VS. SERVITE HIGH SCHOOL
30-2018-00981456-CU-WT-CJC
Jun 13, 2019
Orange County, CA
South Pasadena Unified School District, et al.
JANE CS DOE VS SOUTH PASADENA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, A CALIFORNIA LOCAL PUBLIC ENTITY, ET AL.
20STCV11914
Apr 16, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
The subpoena seeks RRR's entire file related to some of the Plaintiffs, specifically "(1) Cheap Easy Online Traffic School, (2) Cheap Easy On-like Traffic School Pension Plan, (3) the Cheap Easy On-line Profit Sharing Plan, (4) Easy On Line Traffic School.Com, Inc., (5) the Marla Keller Pension Plan, and/or (6) the Marla Keller 401(k) Plan." The subpoena does not seek individual tax returns for any individual.
CHEAP EASY ONLINE TRAFFIC SCHOOL VS PETER L HUNTTING & CO INC
37-2019-00042558-CU-NP-CTL
Aug 26, 2021
San Diego County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Motion to Compel Defendant Perris DOE vs PERRIS UNION HIGH Union High School District's Further CVRI2202641 SCHOOL DISTRICT Responses to Request for Production of Documents by JOHN DOE Tentative Ruling: On June 28, 2022, Plaintiff, John Doe (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint against Defendants, Perris Union High School District (“PUSD”) and Gerardo Regalado (“Regalado”) for personal injuries and damages from childhood sexual abuse
DOE VS PERRIS UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT
CVRI2202641
Dec 11, 2023
Riverside County, CA
Motion to Compel Defendant Perris DOE vs PERRIS UNION HIGH Union High School District's Further CVRI2202641 SCHOOL DISTRICT Responses to Request for Production of Documents by JOHN DOE Tentative Ruling: On June 28, 2022, Plaintiff, John Doe (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint against Defendants, Perris Union High School District (“PUSD”) and Gerardo Regalado (“Regalado”) for personal injuries and damages from childhood sexual abuse
DOE VS PERRIS UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT
CVRI2202641
Dec 10, 2023
Riverside County, CA
Motion to Compel Defendant Perris DOE vs PERRIS UNION HIGH Union High School District's Further CVRI2202641 SCHOOL DISTRICT Responses to Request for Production of Documents by JOHN DOE Tentative Ruling: On June 28, 2022, Plaintiff, John Doe (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint against Defendants, Perris Union High School District (“PUSD”) and Gerardo Regalado (“Regalado”) for personal injuries and damages from childhood sexual abuse
DOE VS PERRIS UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT
CVRI2202641
Dec 09, 2023
Riverside County, CA
It is unquestionably true that important privacy interests are involved here. With respect to parent privacy, the nondisclosure of parent emails preserves the ability of parents to correspond freely with school administrators regarding matters affecting their minor child while at school. If such communications were made public, it might deter parents from communicating with administrators, which could leave important student issues unidentified and unaddressed.
JUDY ROBERTS VS CONEJO VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL
VENCI00537867
Sep 10, 2021
Santa Barbara County, CA
The Complaint alleges that Plaintiff EC, then a 9-year old special needs student, was sexually assaulted in Defendant’s school bathroom by another student on at least four occasions. Plaintiff seeks the performance evaluations within the past 5 years of Jeff Fullerton (Plaintiff’s teacher) and any aids. The constitutional right of privacy is not absolute; it may be abridged when there is a compelling state interest.
E C VS EAST WHITTIER CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT
BC704205
Nov 17, 2020
Lori Ann Fournier or Olivia Rosales
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Hart Union High School District RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff Gabriella H.
GABRIELLA H., A MINOR VS THE WILLIAM S. HART UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT, A BUSINESS ENTITY FORM UNKNOWN AND, ET AL.
19STCV23863
Sep 08, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Defendant Zoe Gammon has a privacy right in her education records and in her medical records. "The right to privacy, however, is not absolute. In appropriate circumstances, this right must be balanced against other important interests. (Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn., supra, 7 Cal.4th at p. 37, 26 Cal.Rptr.2d 834, 865 P.2d 633.) 'On occasion [a party's] privacy interests may have to give way to [the] opponent's right to a fair trial.
BROWN VS GAMMON
37-2016-00038418-CU-PO-CTL
Oct 26, 2017
San Diego County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
I can't because of student privacy. I think you did ask her relative to Inri, and she answered. But there is student privacy; he's a minor; there are special educational issues, medical privacy issues; and I don't think that's contemplated in the protective order at all. And I don't think that was contemplated by the Court in ordering these responses.” (See Mot. at Ex. F [Tucker Depo. at 106:15-20, 106:25-107:6.)
INRI COBA VS PASADENA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT ET AL
BC677307
Aug 16, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
While Defendant did not specifically cite to the Education Code, it does provide that a school district is not authorized to permit access to pupil records to a person without parental consent or a judicial order. ( Ed. Code, § 49076 (a). Confidential records and privacy are protected by the states Constitution. ( Vinson v. Superior Court (1987) 43 Cal.3d 833, 839; White v. Davis (1975) 13 Cal.3d 757 .)
EDWIN NOLASCO VS LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL.
20STCV02062
May 23, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
The third party students have a significant privacy interest in their name and contact information under the immediate circumstances. These unnamed students have a reasonable expectation in the privacy of their identity and contact information at school, given that these students were likely minors at the time they were under Mr. Rowell’s instruction and the extremely sensitive nature of the information plaintiff likely seeks to obtain from them.
JANE DOE VS. RICHARD ROWELL
20CECG03668
Apr 18, 2023
Fresno County, CA
Further, the Federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act expressly authorizes the disclosure of a student’s “directory information” pursuant to a subpoena or court order. (20 U.S.C. § 1232g(b)(2).) The information sought here is directly relevant to this case as Plaintiff seeks identifying information regarding witnesses to the assault and any witness statement that the school compiled regarding the incident.
S.B. VS. OCEAN VIEW SCHOOL DISTRICT
30-2018-01029302
Jun 21, 2021
Orange County, CA
The subpoenas as issued are extremely broad, seeking all school records pertaining to Thornton, including not only matters such as dates of attendance, degrees obtained and PhD dissertation, but school transcripts, disciplinary records, expulsion and suspension records, and medical records.
CHRISTINA CAUBLE ET AL VS RIDGEVIEW DRIVE RANCH INC
BC679638
Jun 21, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
And so, absent discovery of what the school did know through a review of records, a sexual assault victim would be completely hamstrung in his or her efforts to establish a "traditional" school sexual assault case which does not involve the special Jennifer C. circumstances. Meanwhile, the affected students do have privacy rights which need to be protected and honored. The Court has reveiewed, in camera, the "cumulative" folders of the students whose records were subpoenaed.
SARA THOMAS VS. VENTURA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
56-2008-00324212-CU-PO-VTA
Nov 12, 2009
Ventura County, CA
Her theory against the District is that it negligently allowed plaintiff "to use school computers to go to online "chat rooms" where she met defendant CALICA" (who then lured her into the school parking lots for sex). Id., paragraph 24. She further alleges that "it is below the standard of care for school principals and administrators to allow students to utilize school computers without supervision." Id. The initial complaint was filed in late 2017.
C E VS SAN DIEGUITO UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT
37-2017-00046020-CU-PO-CTL
Oct 02, 2019
San Diego County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Plaintiff has already produced evidence in discovery of her prior earning capacity, subsequent to high school, including her employment history and income from 2001 to 2011. In this context, the court does not find Plaintiff’s high school grades from more than 35 years ago to be relevant or to justify the intrusion into Plaintiff’s right to privacy. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.1, subds. (a), (b).)
FROMHERTZ V. ALI, ET AL.
30-2016-00610492-CU-JR-CJC
May 01, 2017
Orange County, CA
Party: Non-oppositions filed by defendants Marlborough School and Viewpoint School Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. BACKGROUND: Plaintiff commenced this action on 4/8/15. On 8/24/16, the Court granted plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a second amended complaint.
JANE DOE VS ROE 1 ET AL
BC577990
Apr 18, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
The parties are ordered to meet and confer regarding a stipulated protective order that will cover the privacy concerns Defendant Bonita Unified School District raised and submit a proposed stipulated protective order to the court within 10 days. The hearing is continued for 45 days.
JANE PE DOE VS BONITA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT ET AL
BC708604
Jul 10, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Please wait a moment while we load this page.