Motion for Order to Publish in Jane Doe vs BIG BROTHERS BIG SISTERS OF AMERICA, a California corporation, et al.| Trellis.Law

On March 12, 2021 a MTC BBBSA Resp. to SROG Set 2-PUBLIC FILE was filed involving a dispute between Jane Be Doe, and Big Brothers Big Sisters Of America, A California Corporation, Big Brothers Big Sisters Of Monterey County, A California Corporation, Big Brothers Big Sisters Of Salina, A California Corporation, Boys & Girls Clubs Of Monterey County, A California Corporation, Jon David Woody, for Other PI/PD/WD Unlimited (23) in the District Court of Monterey County.

Preview
1 JOHN C. MANLY (State Bar No. 149080)
jmanly@manlystewai1.com
2 VINCE W . FINALDI, Esq. (State Bar No. 238279)
vfinaldi@manlystewai1.com
3 ALEX E. CUNNY, Esq. (State Bar No. 291567)
acunny@manlystewai1.com
4 COURTNEY P. PENDRY (State Bar No. 327382)
cpenchy@manlystewait.com
5 MANLY STEWART FINALDI
19100 Von Kaiman A venue, Suite 800
6 Irvine, California 92612
Telephone: (949) 252-9990
7 Facsimile: (949) 252-9991

8 Attorneys for Plaintiff, Jane BE Doe

9 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

10 COUNTY OF MONTEREY

12 JANE BE DOE, Case No. 21CV000805

13 Plaintiff, NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO
COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES FROM
14 V. DEFENDANT BIG BROTHERS BIG
SISTERS OF AMERICA TO
15 BIG BROTHERS BIG SISTERS OF PLAINTIFF'S SPECIAL
AMERICA, a California co1poration; BIG INTERROGATORIES, SET TWO;
16 BROTHERS BIG SISTERS OF MONTEREY MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
COUNTY, a California co1poration ; BOYS & AUTHORITIES--REDACTED
17 GIRLS CLUBS OF MONTEREY COUNTY,
a California co1p oration ; JON DAVID [Filed concmTently with Declaration of
18 WOODY, an individual; and DOES 1-50, Courtney P. Penchy , Sepai·ate Statement, and
inclusive, [Proposed] Order]
19 Defendant.
Date: December 20, 2022
20 Time: 8:30 am
Judge: Thomas W . Wills
21 Dept.: 15

22 Action Filed: March 12, 2021
FAC Filed: December 13, 2021
23 Trial Date: None

25 TO THE COURT, ALL PARTIES, AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:

26 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE on December 20 ,2022, at 8:30 a.m . or as soon thereafter as

27 counsel may be heai·d in Depaiiment 15 of the above-captioned Comi, located at 1200 Aguajito

28 Road, Monterey, CA 93940, that Plaintiff, Jane BE Doe (hereinafter "Plaintiff') brings the instant

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES FROM DEFENDANT BBBSA TO
PLAINTIFF'S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET TWO
1 Motion to Compel Responses from Defendant Big Brothers Big Sisters of America (hereinafter

2 “BBBSA”) to Special Interrogatories, Set Two, Nos. 61 and 62 pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure

3 (“C.C.P.”) §2030.300.

4 The instant Motion is based on BBBSA’s failure to provide substantive responses to

5 Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories, Set Two, Nos. 61 and 62, seeking identification of each

6 participant of BBBSA’s local affiliate, Big Brothers Big Sisters of Monterey County (hereinafter

7 “BBBSMC”) who was matched with serial sexual predator, Defendant Jon David Woody

8 (hereinafter “Woody”), and identification of each participant of BBBSMC who has alleged to have

9 been sexually abused by Woody.
10 BBBSA’s failure to produce the names of percipient witnesses and other known victims of
11 Woody limits the Plaintiff’s ability to prosecute the merits of her case, as these percipient witnesses
MANLY STEWART FINALDI

12 are directly relevant to “notice” and to MIMIC evidence (Evidence Code §1101(b)). Furthermore,
19100 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 800

13 the privacy interests of those other witnesses and victims are outweighed by the Plaintiff’s
Telephone (949) 252-9990
Irvine, California 92612

14 compelling need for discovery on the matter, as these witness names strike to the heart of the
15 Plaintiff’s allegations. This is more apparent considering that these formerly minor victims are now
16 adults and are assured to be protected from public disclosure pursuant to the terms of the Stipulated
17 Protective Order. These names are imminently discoverable, thus, BBBSA should be ordered to
18 provide complete responses to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories Nos. 61 and 62.
19 The parties have met and conferred in good-faith, and extensively, on the matters presented
20 herein. No informal resolution was reached; thus, the instant Motion was necessary. Declaration of

21 Courtney P. Pendry, (“DCP”) ¶ 3.

22 ///

23 ///

24 ///

25 ///

26 ///

27 ///

28 ///
2
MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES FROM DEFENDANT BIG BROTHERS BIG SISTERS OF
AMERICA TO PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET TWO
1 This Motion is based on this Notice, the attached Memorandum of Points and Authorities,

2 the attached Declaration of Courtney P. Pendry and its attachments, the Separate Statement filed in

3 support, all papers and pleadings on file with the Court, and any upon any other matter that may be

4 presented at the hearing on this Motion.

5 DATED: November 16, 2022 MANLY STEWART FINALDI

7
By:
8 COURTNEY P. PENDRY
Attorneys for Plaintiff, Jane BE Doe
9
10

11
MANLY STEWART FINALDI

12
19100 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 800

13
Telephone (949) 252-9990
Irvine, California 92612

28
3
MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES FROM DEFENDANT BIG BROTHERS BIG SISTERS OF
AMERICA TO PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET TWO
1 TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
2

3 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ...................................................................1
4 I. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................1
5 II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ...........................................................1
6 A. FACTS GIVING RISE TO THE INSTANT CASE ..................................................1
7 B. PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND MEET AND CONFER EFFORTS .....................2
8 III. ARGUMENT .........................................................................................................................3
9 A. DISCOVERY IS BROAD AND INTENDED TO PREVENT SURPRISE
AT THE TIME OF TRIAL, AS REQUESTS MUST ONLY BE
10 REASONABLY CALCULATED TO LEAD TO THE DISCOVERY OF
ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE. ......................................................................................3
11
MANLY STEWART FINALDI

B. THE NAMES OF THE WITNESSES ARE DISCOVERABLE, AS
12 PLAINTIFFS HAVE A COMPELLING NEED TO DISCOVERY THE
IDENTITIES OF PERCIPIENT WITNESSES. ........................................................5
19100 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 800

13
Telephone (949) 252-9990
Irvine, California 92612

1. Though The Percipient Witnesses Have Privacy Rights, Those
14 Privacy Rights Are Outweighed By Plaintiffs’ Compelling Need For
Discovery On The Matter. ..............................................................................6
15
2. Remedies Already In Place To Protect The Victim/Percipient
16 Witnesses and Further Protections That Can Be Created By The
Parties And The Court. ...................................................................................9
17
C. BBBSA’S OBJECTIONS OF RELEVANCE, AMBIGUITY, AND
18 OVERBREADTH ARE WITHOUT MERIT ..........................................................10
19 1. The Interrogatories At Issue Are Neither Vague Nor Ambiguous...............10
20 2. The Interrogatories At Issue Are Inherently Limited in Scope and
Time .............................................................................................................10
21
3. The Interrogatories At Issue Are Unquestionably Relevant to
22 Plaintiff’s Claims..........................................................................................11
23 IV. CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................12
24

28
4
MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES FROM DEFENDANT BIG BROTHERS BIG SISTERS OF
AMERICA TO PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET TWO
1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page(s)
2
Cases
3
Brown v. USA Taekwondo,
4 (2021) 11 Cal.5th 204, fn. 9 .......................................................................................................... 4
5 C.A. v. William S. Hart Union High School District,
(2012) 53 Cal.4th 861.................................................................................................................... 4
6 Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co. v. Sup. Ct.,
(1982) 31 Cal.3d 785 ............................................................................................................... 3, 11
7 Crab Addison Inc. v. Superior Court,
(2008) 169 Cal.App.4th 958 ...................................................................................................... 6, 7
8
Deyo v. Kilbourne,
9 (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771 ........................................................................................................... 10
Doe v. Lincoln Unified School Dist.,
10 (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 758 ........................................................................................................ 10
Glenfed Development Corp. v. Sup. Ct.,
11 (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 1113 .......................................................................................................... 3
MANLY STEWART FINALDI

Greyhound Corp.,
12
56 Cal.2d 355 .......................................................................................................................... 3, 11
19100 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 800

13 Hill v. NCAA,
Telephone (949) 252-9990
Irvine, California 92612

(1994) 7 Cal.4th 1...................................................................................................................... 6, 9
14 In Re Clergy Cases I,
(2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 1224 .................................................................................................... 6, 7
15 Juarez,
81 Cal.App.4th .............................................................................................................................. 4
16
Kahn v. East Side Union High School Dist.,
17 (2003) 31 Cal.4th 990................................................................................................................ 4, 5
Kirkland v. Sup. Ct.,
18 (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th ................................................................................................................... 3
People v. Ramirez,
19 (1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 47 .............................................................................................................. 6
20 Pioneer Elec. (USA), Inc. v. Sup. Ct.,
(2007) 40 Cal.4th 360.............................................................................................................. 9, 11
21 Puerto v. Superior Ct.,
(2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1242 .................................................................................................... 3, 7
22 Regents of Univ. of California v. Superior Court,
(2018) 4 Cal.5th 607...................................................................................................................... 4
23 Smith v. Sup. Ct. In and For San Joaquin County,
24 (1961) 189 Cal.App.2d 6 ............................................................................................................... 8
TBG Ins. Servs. Corp. v. Sup. Ct.,
25 (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 443 ............................................................................................................ 3
Valley Bank of Nevada v. Sup. Ct.,
26 (1975) 15 Cal.3d 652 ..................................................................................................................... 9
Williams v. Sup. Ct.,
27 (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531...................................................................................................................... 9
28
Statutes
5
MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES FROM DEFENDANT BIG BROTHERS BIG SISTERS OF
AMERICA TO PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET TWO
1 CAL.CONST. ART. 1, §1 ...................................................................................................................... 6
U.S. CONST. AMEND. XIV ................................................................................................................. 8
2
Other Authorities
3
In Re New York Times, 31 Media L. Reptr. 2321,
4
2002 Conn.Super. LEXIS 1634, (vacating protective order.) ....................................................... 7
5

11
MANLY STEWART FINALDI

12
19100 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 800

13
Telephone (949) 252-9990
Irvine, California 92612

28
6
MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES FROM DEFENDANT BIG BROTHERS BIG SISTERS OF
AMERICA TO PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET TWO
1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

2 I. INTRODUCTION

3 Plaintiff, Jane BE Doe (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) brings the instant Motion in order to compel

4 Defendant Big Brothers Big Sisters of America (hereinafter “BBBSA”) to provide further responses

5 to Special Interrogatory No. 61, seeking identification of each participant of BBBSA’s now

6 dissolved local affiliate, Big Brothers Big Sisters of Monterey County (hereinafter “BBBSMC”)

7 who was matched with serial sexual predator and former BBBSMC volunteer, Jon David Woody

8 (hereinafter “Woody”), and Special Interrogatory No. 62, seeking identification of each participant

9 of BBBSMC who alleged that Woody engaged in sexual misconduct.
10 Through a litany of specious objections, BBBSA seeks to hide the identities of other known
11 victims and potential witnesses to Woody’s horrific abuses. BBBSA claims the Plaintiff is not
MANLY STEWART FINALDI

12 entitled discover the identities of witness and known victims of Woody because such third-parties
19100 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 800

13 have a right to privacy. This position, however, summarily precludes the Plaintiff from obtaining
Telephone (949) 252-9990
Irvine, California 92612

14 the testimony of critical percipient witnesses, on the basis that BBBSA is seeking to protect their

15 privacy. Plaintiff seeks the names of these percipient witnesses only to conduct minimally invasive

16 discovery to uncover critically important evidence necessary for the full and fair prosecution of the

17 Plaintiff’s case, including on issues that strike to the heart of the Plaintiff’s negligence claims:

18 notice. Given that BBBSA claims to have had no notice of the dangers presented by Woody to

19 BBBSA/BBBSMC participants, Plaintiff has an even greater interest in proving her case through

20 the testimony of these percipient witnesses. See BBBSA Responses to Request for Admissions, Set

21 One, No. 9, attached as Exhibit “1” to Declaration of Courtney P. Pendry, (“DCP”). Thus, BBBSA

22 cannot justify the continued withholding of these individuals’ identities.

23 As such, Plaintiffs requests that the Court the instant Motion in its entirety.

24 II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

25 A. FACTS GIVING RISE TO THE INSTANT CASE

26 From approximately 2000 through 2002, Plaintiff was a minor participant in the
27 BBBSA/BBBSMC mentoring program. First Amended Complaint, (“FAC”) ¶ 23 attached as Ex.
28 “2” to DCP. Through Plaintiff’s participation with BBBSA/BBBSMC, she was placed into contact
1
MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES FROM DEFENDANT BIG BROTHERS BIG SISTERS OF
AMERICA TO PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET TWO
1 with sexual predator, Jon David Woody. Id. Throughout Plaintiff’s participation in

2 BBBSA/BBBSMC, she was subject to sexual abuse at the hands of her trusted mentor. Id. For two

3 years, Woody repeatedly sexually abused Plaintiff in various ways, including but not limited to:

4 grooming and secluding Plaintiff, fondling Plaintiff’s genitals, forcing Plaintiff to lie down on a

5 table and remover her pants and underwear and digitally penetrating Plaintiff’s vagina. Id. Woody

6 was ultimately charged and sentenced to 226 years in prison for his abuse of Plaintiff and other

7 minor children – including numerous other BBBSA/BBBSMC participants. Id. at ¶ 19.

8 B. PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND MEET AND CONFER EFFORTS

9 On June 24, 2022, Plaintiff propounded Special Interrogatories, Set Two on BBBSA. Special
10 Interrogatories, Set Two, attached as Exhibit “3” to DCP. On August 16, 2022, Plaintiff received

11 BBBSA’s Responses to the same. BBBSA Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set Two, attached
MANLY STEWART FINALDI

12 as Exhibit “4” to DCP. Upon receipt of BBBSA’s responses, Plaintiff sent a meet and confer letter,
19100 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 800

13 addressing various deficiencies in BBBSA’s responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of
Telephone (949) 252-9990
Irvine, California 92612

14 Documents, Set Two, and Special Interrogatories, Set Two. Plaintiff’s 09/09/22 Meet and Confer

15 Ltr, attached as Exhibit “5” to DCP. Through the meet and confer process, the parties were able to

16 resolve the majority of the disputes related to BBBSA’s responses. DCP. ¶ 3. After extensive meet

17 and confer efforts, the only disputes remaining were related to Special Interrogatories Nos. 61 and

18 62 for which BBBSA failed to provide a substantive response. These interrogatories read as follows:

19 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 61:

20 IDENTIFY EACH minor participant of BBBSMC who was matched with WOODY.

21 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 62:

22 IDENTIFY EACH minor participant of BBBSMC who alleged that WOODY engaged in

23 SEXUAL MISCONDUCT.

24 Though the parties attempted in good-faith to solve these issues, no informal resolution could

25 be reached. DCP ¶ 3. As such, Plaintiff brings the instant Motion to compel seeking the identification

26 of each participant of BBBSMC who was matched with Woody and each participant of who has

27 alleged that Woody engaged in sexual misconduct.

28
2
MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES FROM DEFENDANT BIG BROTHERS BIG SISTERS OF
AMERICA TO PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET TWO
1 III. ARGUMENT

2 A. DISCOVERY IS BROAD AND INTENDED TO PREVENT SURPRISE AT
THE TIME OF TRIAL, AS REQUESTS MUST ONLY BE REASONABLY
3 CALCULATED TO LEAD TO THE DISCOVERY OF ADMISSIBLE
EVIDENCE.
4
A party may obtain discovery of any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject
5
matter of the litigation and is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
6
Code of Civil Procedure (“C.C.P.”) §2017.010. Purposes of statutes establishing expansive scope
7
of discovery include eliminating surprise at trial, educating parties concerning their claims and
8
defenses so as to encourage settlements and to expedite and facilitate trial, and to minimize
9
opportunities for fabrication and forgetfulness. Puerto v. Superior Ct. (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1242,
10
California courts have consistently construed the discovery statutes broadly, so as to uphold the
11
MANLY STEWART FINALDI

right to discovery wherever possible; the “relevance to the subject matter” and “reasonably
12
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence” standards are liberally applied, and any
19100 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 800

13
Telephone (949) 252-9990
Irvine, California 92612

doubt is generally resolved in favor of permitting discovery. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co. v. Sup.
14
Ct. (1982) 31 Cal.3d 785, 790; Greyhound Corp., 56 Cal.2d 355, 377-78.
15
“In the context of discovery, evidence is ‘relevant’ if it might reasonably assist a party in
16
evaluating its case, preparing for trial, or facilitating a settlement. Admissibility is not the test, and
17
it is sufficient if the information sought might reasonably lead to other, admissible evidence.” TBG
18
Ins. Servs. Corp. v. Sup. Ct. (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 443, 448-49; Glenfed Development Corp. v. Sup.
19
Ct. (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1117. A party “is entitled to nonprivileged information, cumulative
20
or not, which may reasonably assist it in evaluating its defense, preparing for trial, or facilitating a
21
settlement.” TBG Ins. Servs. Corp., 96 Cal.App.4th at 448-49. Moreover, the state’s pretrial
22
discovery procedures are designed to minimize the opportunity for fabrication and forgetfulness,
23
and to eliminate the need for guess work regarding the other side’s evidence, with all doubts
24
generally resolved in favor of disclosure. Kirkland v. Sup. Ct. (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 94 (emphasis
25
added).
26
Here, Plaintiff seeks to obtain (a) the identification of each BBBSMC participant that was
27
matched with Woody, and (b) the identification of each BBBSMC participant who has alleged to
28
3
MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES FROM DEFENDANT BIG BROTHERS BIG SISTERS OF
AMERICA TO PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET TWO
1 have been sexually abused by Woody.

2 1. The Identities of These Witnesses Are Directly Relevant to The Causes
of Action Against BBSA, As These Witnesses Would Have Testimony
3 That Goes to Prove “Notice” And Furthermore Would Be Admissible
Under Evidence Code §1101(b).
4
In California, institutions that take minors into their care, custody or control, stand in loco
5
parentis with those minors, and owe them a protective duty of care. C.A. v. William S. Hart Union
6
High School District (2012) 53 Cal.4th 861. “Generally, a greater degree of care is owed to children
7
because of their lack of capacity to appreciate risks and avoid danger. ([Citation omitted].)
8
Consequently, California courts have frequently recognized special relationships between
9
10 children and their adult caregivers that give rise to a duty to prevent harms caused by the

11 intentional or criminal conduct of third parties.” Juarez, 81 Cal.App.4th at 410[emphasis added]
MANLY STEWART FINALDI

disapproved of to the extent mentioned by Brown v. USA Taekwondo (2021) 11 Cal.5th 204, fn. 9.
12
19100 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 800

“[A] duty to take affirmative action to control the wrongful acts of a third party will be imposed
13
Telephone (949) 252-9990
Irvine, California 92612

only where such conduct can be reasonably anticipated.” Id. at 402. “[I]n cases where there are
14
strong policy reasons for preventing the harm, or the harm can be prevented by simple means, a
15
lesser degree of foreseeability may be required. [Citation.] Thus, foreseeability is a somewhat
16
flexible concept.” Id. C.A. further explains:
17
“…California law has long imposed on school authorities a duty to ‘supervise at all times
18 the conduct of the children on the school grounds and to enforce those rules and regulations
necessary to their protection. [Citations.]’ [Citations.] …Either a total lack of supervision
19 [citation] or ineffective supervision [citation] may constitute a lack of ordinary care on the
part of those responsible for student supervision.” C.A. 53 Cal.4th 861.
20
“We emphasize that a duty of care is not the equivalent of liability. ... Reasonable care will
21
vary under the circumstances of each case.” Regents of Univ. of California v. Superior Court
22
(2018) 4 Cal.5th 607, 634[Emphasis Added]. Plaintiff was a minor in Defendants’ custody and
23
control during the time of her abuse. Defendants therefore owed a duty to offer Plaintiff “some
24
protection against [his] own lack of mature judgment.” Kahn v. East Side Union High School Dist.
25
(2003) 31 Cal.4th 990, 1017. In terms of breach, a defendant breaches this duty when it “knew or
26
should have known” that an employee was “unfit” or “incompetent” for the work for which they
27
were hired, and that the unfitness created a “particular risk.” California Civil Jury Instruction, No.
28
4
MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES FROM DEFENDANT BIG BROTHERS BIG SISTERS OF
AMERICA TO PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET TWO
1 426. As explained in the recently decided case of Roe v. Hesperia Unified School District (2022)

2 2022 WL167099969 (certified for publication), there is no “actual” notice requirement, but rather,

3 it is constructive notice requirement where conduct such as children sitting on a perpetrator’s lap,

4 the perpetrator engaging in various “grooming activities” and the perpetrator luring young children

5 into secluded environments alone. Id. at pp.2-3, 20. Here, this precisely the type of “inquiry”

6 evidence (and potentially actual notice evidence) that could and is expected to be elicited from the

7 particular witnesses and potential other victims of Woody. This is the heart of the Plaintiff’s

8 negligence claims against BBBSA, and speaks directly to most contested issues in the case.

9 Moreover, the testimony elicited from these individuals, even if it does not ultimately prove
10 “notice”, would invariably be admissible as “MIMIC” evidence under Evidence Code §1101(b).
11 Showing a perpetrator’s motive, intent or common plan/scheme is precisely evidence that would be
MANLY STEWART FINALDI

12 admitted under §1101(b), and showing that Woody engaged in that similar conduct with other
19100 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 800

13 children, makes the testimony of these witnesses and/or potential victims imminently important to
Telephone (949) 252-9990
Irvine, California 92612

14 proving Woody’s modus operandi.
15 For these reasons, the evidence elicited from the proposed witnesses is directly relevant to
16 the most important issues in the case.
17 B. THE NAMES OF THE WITNESSES ARE DISCOVERABLE, AS
PLAINTIFFS HAVE A COMPELLING NEED TO DISCOVERY THE
18 IDENTITIES OF PERCIPIENT WITNESSES.

19 BBBSA’s position is that the third-party privacy rights of those witnesses prevent the

20 disclosure of their names. BBBSA’s analysis is short-sighted, as it fails to acknowledge: (a) Plaintiff

21 is entitled to discover these percipient witnesses’ names and take their depositions to gain further

22 facts demonstrating BBBSA’s knew, or should have known, that Woody was sexually abusing

23 minor participants, including the Plaintiff; (b) the risk of public disclosure and intrusion into the

24 lives of the now adult witnesses is heavily limited, especially considering that the Court and parties

25 can craft an appropriate order to limit intrusion (and have done so by way of the operative Protective

26 Order in this matter); and (c) most importantly, BBBSA likely intends to use the absence of

27 percipient witness testimony, not as a shield to protect these victims, but as a sword to eliminate the

28 claims of the Plaintiff.
5
MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES FROM DEFENDANT BIG BROTHERS BIG SISTERS OF
AMERICA TO PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET TWO
1 1. Though The Percipient Witnesses Have Privacy Rights, Those Privacy
Rights Are Outweighed By Plaintiffs’ Compelling Need For Discovery
2 On The Matter.

3 “[I]t is only under unusual circumstances that the courts restrict discovery of nonparty

4 witnesses' residential contact information. (citation) These circumstances include where disclosure

5 of the information violates the right to privacy and is unnecessary to the prosecution of the litigation

6 or where it may endanger the witnesses. Crab Addison Inc. v. Superior Court, (2008) 169

7 Cal.App.4th 958, 967.

8 There is no question that the privacy interests of minors (especially, minor sexual abuse

9 victims) are a recognized and important state interest. See People v. Ramirez (1997) 55 Cal.App.4th
10 47, 53; CAL.CONST. ART. 1, §1. However, the “[i]nvasion of a privacy interest is not a violation of
11 the state constitutional right to privacy if the invasion is justified by a competing interest. …’
MANLY STEWART FINALDI

12 Moreover, here, while other victims and other individuals matched with Woody through BBBSMC
19100 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 800

13 were minors at the time of the abuse, they are now adults.
Telephone (949) 252-9990
Irvine, California 92612

14 The compelling social interest in disclosure of information relating to sexual predators of

15 children outweigh the privacy interests” asserted on behalf of (yet to be identified) third-parties in

16 the instant case. In Re Clergy Cases I (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 1224 (quoting Hill v. NCAA (1994) 7

17 Cal.4th 1, 38.) In Clergy Cases I, the Court of Appeal authorized public disclosure of the same sort

18 of documents produced in discovery that are the subject of this motion to vacate or modify the

19 protective order—i.e., “personnel files and other confidential files” of individual friars who had

20 been alleged to have sexually abused children, including psychiatric and/or psychological treatment

21 records, as well as transcripts of depositions taken before the case settled, even though most of the

22 alleged abusers (and many other priests named in the records) were not defendants in most of the

23 cases and were not even parties to the settlement. Clergy Cases I, 188 Cal.App.4th at 1229-30.

24 Further, the Court Clergy Cases I recognized that the adopted settlement agreement correctly

25 stated that “no third-party privacy rights could be claimed by the [Church] as to documents deemed

26 to affect ‘public safety issues relating to childhood sexual abuse’ or that reflect ‘the knowledge of

27 the defendants as to the suspected sexual abuse of a child’ or the ‘cover’ thereof.” Id. at 1235-36

28 (releasing records concerning 41 clergy who allegedly committed abuse, only nine of whom were
6
MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES FROM DEFENDANT BIG BROTHERS BIG SISTERS OF
AMERICA TO PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET TWO
1 named perpetrators subject to the settlement, as well as 54 alleged victims of sexual abuse, of

2 which only 25 were plaintiffs in the cases.) As the Court aptly held in Clergy Cases I, “compelling

3 social interests in protecting children from molestation outweigh [defendant’s] privacy rights” and

4 the other justifications for secrecy asserted by defendants—including the psychotherapist-patient

5 privilege—were unavailing. Clergy Cases I, 188 Cal.App.4th 1229, 1235-36. Other courts have also

6 rejected the argument that privacy rights shield from public disclosure of discovery and deposition

7 transcripts in cases alleging “sexual abuse of minors over a period of decades, which horrors were

8 covered up by the [Church],” because “[t]he existence of the legitimate public interest precludes

9 the recognition of individual privacy rights.” (emphasis added) In Re New York Times, 31 Media
10 L. Reptr. 2321, 2002 Conn.Super. LEXIS 1634, (vacating protective order.)
11 In Crab Addison Inc, the Court of Appeals found that the trial court acted within its discretion
MANLY STEWART FINALDI

12 in ordering disclosure of identities and contact information of restaurant employees who were
19100 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 800

13 potential class members, even though the employer did not voluntarily disclose either employees'
Telephone (949) 252-9990
Irvine, California 92612

14 identities or their contact information, and even though some employees had checked boxes on
15 forms requesting that employer not disclose their personal information or not do so without
16 affirmative written consent. Crab Addison Inc., supra (2008) 169 Cal.App.4th at 969. In so holding,
17 the Court emphasized that “[c]entral to the discovery process is the identification of potential
18 witnesses. ‘The disclosure of the names and addresses of potential witnesses' is a routine and
19 essential part of pretrial discovery. [Citation.] Indeed, our discovery system is founded on the
20 understanding that parties use discovery to obtain names and contact information for possible
21 witnesses as the starting point for further investigations[.]” Id. At 966.
22 Furthermore, “a percipient witness's willingness to participate in civil discovery has never
23 been considered relevant—witnesses may be compelled to appear and testify whether they want to
24 or not.” Puerto v. Superior Court (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1242, 1251-52. This sentiment is even
25 echoed in the Judicial Council Form Interrogatory 12.1. 1 In the instant case, the names of other

26
1
Judicial Council Form Interrogatory 12.0:
27
“12.0 Investigation-General;
28 12.1 State the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each individual:
7
MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES FROM DEFENDANT BIG BROTHERS BIG SISTERS OF
AMERICA TO PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET TWO
1 potential witnesses to sexual misconduct by Woody and other known

Case Info

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

November 16, 2022

Case Filing Date

March 12, 2021

County

Parties

Alison McNaboe Crane Attorney for the Defendant
Ashley Taylor Rayfield Attorney for the Plaintiff
BIG BROTHERS BIG SISTERS OF AMERICA, a California corporation Defendant
Big Brothers Big SIsters of Monterey County, a California Corporation Defendant
BIG BROTHERS BIG SISTERS OF SALINA, a California corporation Defendant
Boys & Girls Clubs of Monterey County, a California Corporation Defendant
Courtney Meghan Thom Attorney for the Plaintiff
Courtney Pauline Pendry Attorney for the Plaintiff
Jane BE Doe Plaintiff
John Clinton Manly Attorney for the Plaintiff
Jon David Woody Defendant
Mark Heisy Attorney for the Defendant
Michael Anthony Kruppe Attorney for the Defendant
Morgan Alan Stewart Attorney for the Plaintiff
Paul Damien Caleo Attorney for the Defendant
Tara A Murray Attorney for the Defendant
Vince Finaldi Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Gary Moore Attorney
Maya Miller Attorney
John Mackay Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Jane Reilley Attorney
Haley Aanestad Attorney
Michael Kaufman Attorneys for Defendants
Omair Khan Attorney
Joy Smith Attorney
Chad Thomas Attorneys for Defendants
Gary Brown Attorney

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Document for Jane Doe vs BIG BROTHERS BIG SISTERS OF AMERICA, a California corporation, et al.

Preview

Related Topics

Case Info

Parties