Preview
1 Alison M. Crane, SBN 197359
Tara A. Murray, SBN 284871
2 BLEDSOE, DIESTEL, TREPPA & CRANE LLP
180 Sansome Street, 5th Floor
3 San Francisco, California 94104-3713
Telephone: (415) 981-5411
4 Facsimile: (415) 981-0352
acrane@bledsoelaw.com
5 tmurray@bledsoelaw.com
6 Attorneys for Defendant BIG BROTHERS BIG SISTERS
OF AMERICA, a California corporation
7
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF MONTEREY
10
11 JANE BE DOE an individual, Case No. 21CV000805
12 Plaintiffs, DECLARATION OF TARA A. MURRAY
IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT BIG
13 v. BROTHER BIG SISTES OF AMERICA’S
OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF JANE BE
14 BIG BROTHERS BIG SISTERS OF DOE’S MOTION TO COMPEL
AMERICA, a California corporation; BIG FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL
15 BROTHERS BIG SISTERS OF SALINA, INTERROGATORIES, SET TWO
a California corporation; JON DAVID
16 WOODY, an individual; and DOES 1-50, Date: January 27, 2023
inclusive, Time: 8:30 a.m.
17 Judge: Thomas W. Wills
Defendants.
18 Dept.: 15
19
20 I, Tara A. Murray, declare:
21 1. I am an attorney duly licensed to practice law before the courts in the State of
22 California, and an associate in the law firm of Bledsoe, Diestel, Treppa & Crane, LLP, attorney of
23 record herein for Defendant BIG BROTHERS BIG SISTERS OF AMERICA, a California
24 corporation (hereinafter “Defendant” or “BBBSA”) in the above-referenced matter.
25 2. I am personally familiar with the facts set forth herein and if called upon to testify
26 thereto in a court of law, I could and would do so competently.
27 3. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of Plaintiff’s Special
28 Interrogatories, Set Two, served on June 24, 2022.
-1-
DECLARATION OF TARA A. MURRAY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S OPPOSITION TO
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL RE SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET TWO
1 4. Attached hereto as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of BBBSA’s verified
2 responses to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories, Set Two, served on August 16, 2022.
3 5. Attached hereto as Exhibit C is a true and correct copy of the meet and confer
4 letter from defense counsel to Plaintiff dated September 13, 2022, in which defense counsel
5 responded to Plaintiff’s meet and confer letter dated September 9, 2022, in which Plaintiff
6 requested further responses, including Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories, Nos. 61 and 62.
7 6. On September 9, 2022, the undersigned for BBBSA and Plaintiff’s counsel,
8 Courtney Pendry, telephonically met and conferred regarding Plaintiff’s written discovery
9 requests, including Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories, Nos. 61 and 62. Despite a good faith effort,
10 counsel did not resolve the dispute regarding Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories, Nos. 61 and 62 as
11 BBBSA maintained its position that BBBSA does not have authority to waive third-party privacy
12 rights, also noting that this Court’s prior discovery orders required redaction of the information
13 sought by Plaintiffs.
14 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
15 foregoing is true and correct, and that this Declaration is executed on January 13, 2023 at San
16 Francisco, California.
17
18 Tara A. Murray
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-
DECLARATION OF TARA A. MURRAY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S OPPOSITION TO
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL RE SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET TWO
EXHIBIT A
1 JOHN C. MANLY (State Bar No. 149080)
jmanly@manlystewart.com
2 VINCE W. FINALDI, Esq. (State Bar No. 238279)
vfinaldi@manlystewart.com
3 ALEX E. CUNNY, Esq. (State Bar No. 291567)
acunny@manlystewart.com
4 COURTNEY P. PENDRY (State Bar No. 327382)
cpendry@manlystewart.com
5 MANLY STEWART FINALDI
19100 Von Karman Avenue, 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
11
MANLY STEWART FINALDI
12 JANE BE DOE, Case No. 21CV000805
19100 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 800
PLAINTIFF JANE BE DOE’S SPECIAL
Telephone (949) 252-9990
13 Plaintiff,
Irvine, California 92612
INTERROGATORIES, SET TWO, TO
14 v. DEFENDANT BIG BROTHERS BIG
SISTERS OF AMERICA
15 BIG BROTHERS BIG SISTERS OF
AMERICA, a California corporation; BIG Judge: Thomas W. Wills
16 BROTHERS BIG SISTERS OF MONTEREY Dept.: 15
COUNTY, a California corporation; BOYS &
17 GIRLS CLUBS OF MONTEREY COUNTY, Action Filed: March 12, 2021
a California corporation; JON DAVID Trial Date: None
18 WOODY, an individual; and DOES 1-50,
inclusive,
19
Defendant.
20
21 PROPOUNDING PARTY: Plaintiff, JANE BE DOE
22 RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant, BIG BROTHERS BIG SISTERS OF
23 AMERICA
24 SET NO.: TWO
25 TO DEFENDANT BIG BROTHERS BIG SISTERS OF AMERICA AND TO ITS
26 ATTORNEY OF RECORD:
27 Plaintiff JANE BE DOE (“Plaintiff” and/or “Propounding Party”), hereby requests that
28 Defendant BIG BROTHERS BIG SISTERS OF AMERICA (“Defendant”, “YOU” or
PLAINTIFF JANE BE DOE’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET TWO, TO DEFENDANT BIG BROTHERS
BIG SISTERS OF AMERICA
1 “YOUR(S)”), respond to this Second Set of Special Interrogatories pursuant to Code of Civil
2 Procedure Sections 2030.010 et seq. within thirty (30) days of service:
3 DEFINITIONS
4 1. The terms “YOU, ” “YOUR,” AND “BBBSA” shall mean the Responding Party to
5 the present set of Special Interrogatories, Defendant BIG BROTHERS BIG SISTERS OF
6 AMERICA.
7 2. The term “BBBSMC” shall mean YOUR local affiliate and named Defendant in this
8 matter, BIG BROTHERS BIG SISTERS OF MONTEREY COUNTY.
9 3. The term “WOODY” means the named defendant in this matter, Jon David Woody
10 4. The terms “PLAINTIFF” and “JANE BE DOE” shall refer to the Plaintiff, JANE BE
11 DOE, in the above referenced matter.
MANLY STEWART FINALDI
12 5. The terms “ANY” and “ALL” shall include “each” and “every” within their
19100 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 800
Telephone (949) 252-9990
13 meanings.
Irvine, California 92612
14 6. The term “IDENTIFY” with respect to a natural person shall mean to state the
15 complete name, date of birth, last known business AND residential address, AND last known
16 business AND residential telephone numbers. The term “IDENTIFY” with respect to real property
17 shall mean to state the business OR residential address OR legal description of the property. The
18 term “IDENTIFY” with respect to a DOCUMENT shall mean to describe the DOCUMENT by
19 listing its description, location and author(s), and date of creation. The term “IDENTIFY” with
20 respect to a lawsuit shall mean to state the case name, case number, and the Court in which the
21 lawsuit was filed. The term “IDENTIFY” with respect to a criminal investigation shall mean to state
22 the crime for which YOU were investigated, the law enforcement agency which investigated YOU,
23 and the outcome of the investigation.
24 7. The term “DESCRIBE” with respect to an allegation of SEXUAL MISCONDUCT
25 shall mean to state the date that you became aware of the allegation, the manner in which you
26 became aware of the allegation, and the specific act(s) of SEXUAL MISCONDUCT alleged.
27 8. The terms “RELATE TO,” “RELATING TO” “RELATED TO” and
28 “REGARDING” shall mean, in addition to the customary and usual meaning, constituting,
2
PLAINTIFF JANE BE DOE’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET TWO, TO DEFENDANT BIG BROTHERS
BIG SISTERS OF AMERICA
1 comprising, supporting, diminishing, contradicting, discussing, referring to, reflecting, assessing,
2 recording, describing, or in any way relevant to, or discoverable in whole or in part.
3 9. The terms “DOCUMENT” and “DOCUMENTS” shall mean any and all manner of
4 written, typed, printed, reproduced, filmed, OR recorded material and all photographs, pictures,
5 plans, or other representations of any kind of anything pertaining, describing, referring, or relating,
6 directly or indirectly, in whole or in part, to the subject matter of each discovery request and the
7 term includes, but is not limited to: papers, books, journals, ledgers, statements, bank statements,
8 property title reports, title records, recording of title, memoranda, reports, invoices, work sheets,
9 work papers, notes, transcriptions of notes, letters, correspondence, abstracts, checks, diagrams,
10 plans, blueprints, schematics, software programs, films, photographs, diaries, lists, logs,
11 publications, advertisements, instructions, minutes, orders, purchase orders, messages, resumes,
MANLY STEWART FINALDI
12 applications, summaries, agreements, contracts, telegrams, e-mails, instant messages, text messages,
19100 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 800
Telephone (949) 252-9990
13 telexes, cables, recordings, audio tapes, magnetic tapes, visual tapes, transcriptions of tapes or
Irvine, California 92612
14 records, computer tapes, books, speeches, pamphlets, leaflets, flyers, announcements, bulletins,
15 periodicals, agenda, reports, opinions, charges, tabulations, digests, compilations, studies, expert
16 analyses, evaluations, manuals, guides, research papers, articles, computer files, computer hard
17 drives, or other writings or tangible things as defined by Section 250 of the Evidence Code, in the
18 possession, custody or control of YOU, YOUR attorneys, agents, servants, representatives,
19 investigators, subsidiaries, boards, directors, affiliated business entities and others who have
20 obtained possession, custody or control.
21 10. The term “COMMUNICATION” shall mean any correspondence in any manner,
22 whether by memorandum, letter, memorializations and/or transcriptions of conversations,
23 handwritten note, typewritten note, mail, fax, personal delivery, messenger, e-mail, electronic
24 communication of any type or sort, instant message, text message, modem or other electronic,
25 mechanical or manual means.
26 11. The terms “SEXUAL MISCONDUCT,” “MOLESTED,” “MOLEST” and
27 “MOLESTATION” shall mean any alleged, suspected, OR proven unlawful sexual conduct,
28 including sexual abuse of minors, sexual behavior, childhood sexual abuse, sexual exploitation,
3
PLAINTIFF JANE BE DOE’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET TWO, TO DEFENDANT BIG BROTHERS
BIG SISTERS OF AMERICA
1 sexual assault, sexual battery, sexual touching, sexual harassment, sexual communications, OR
2 molestation, including but not limited to: anal intercourse, sodomy, vaginal intercourse, cunnilingus,
3 fellatio, digital penetration, penetration with a foreign object, masturbation, fondling, groping,
4 fondling OR groping of the buttocks, fondling OR groping of the breasts, fondling OR groping of
5 the genitals, massaging, stimulated intercourse, frottage, inter-femoral intercourse, kissing of parts
6 of the body in a sexual manner, hugging in a sexual manner, sadomasochism, creating OR viewing
7 OR providing child pornography, group sex, sexual conversation, sleeping together, OR any other
8 form of unlawful sexual conduct whatsoever.
9 12. the term "SEXUAL ACTIVITY" is defined to mean any sexual contact or behavior,
10 including kissing, fondling, vaginal intercourse, masturbation, anal intercourse, cunnilingus,
11 fellatio, digital penetration, penetration with a foreign object, groping, massaging, simulated
MANLY STEWART FINALDI
12 intercourse, frottage, inter-femoral intercourse, hugging in a sexual manner, sadomasochism,
19100 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 800
Telephone (949) 252-9990
13 providing pornography, group sex, sexual conversation, sleeping together, "sexting," sexual
Irvine, California 92612
14 photography, OR any other form of sexual activity whatsoever.
15 13. The term “DATE” means month, day and year.
16 14. The term “POLICY" shall mean ANY policy OR procedure, whether formal OR
17 informal and whether written OR oral.
18 SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES
19 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 57:
20 State the year(s) that PLAINTIFF was involved with BBBSMC.
21 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 58:
22 State the year(s) that WOODY was involved with BBBSMC.
23 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 59:
24 IDENTIFY EACH local affiliate of BBBSA that WOODY served as a VOLUNTEER.
25 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 60:
26 IDENTIFY EACH board member of YOUR local affiliate, BBBSMC, between the years
27 of 1999-2002.
28 ///
4
PLAINTIFF JANE BE DOE’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET TWO, TO DEFENDANT BIG BROTHERS
BIG SISTERS OF AMERICA
1 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 61:
2 IDENTIFY EACH minor participant of BBBSMC who was matched with WOODY.
3 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 62:
4 IDENTIFY EACH minor participant of BBBSMC who alleged that WOODY engaged in
5 SEXUAL MISCONDUCT.
6 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 63:
7 IDENTIFY EACH draft, proposed, or recommended POLICY YOU provided to
8 BBBSMC RELATED TO SEXUAL MISCONDUCT between 1999 and 2011.
9 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 64:
10 IDENTIFY EACH draft, proposed, or recommended POLICY YOU provided to
11 BBBSMC RELATED TO training volunteers between 1999 and 2011.
MANLY STEWART FINALDI
12 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 65:
19100 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 800
Telephone (949) 252-9990
13 IDENTIFY EACH draft, proposed, or recommended POLICY YOU provided to
Irvine, California 92612
14 BBBSMC RELATED TO screening and/or vetting volunteers between 1999 and 2011.
15
16
17
18 DATED: June 24, 2022 MANLY STEWART FINALDI
19
20
By:
21 COURTNEY P. PENDRY
Attorneys for Plaintiff, Jane BE Doe
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
PLAINTIFF JANE BE DOE’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET TWO, TO DEFENDANT BIG BROTHERS
BIG SISTERS OF AMERICA
1 PROOF OF SERVICE
2
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ORANGE
3
I am employed in the county of Orange, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and
4 not a party to the within action; my business address is 19100 Von Karman Ave., Suite 800,
Irvine, CA 92612.
5
On June 24, 2022, I served the foregoing document described as PLAINTIFF JANE BE
6 DOE’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET TWO, TO DEFENDANT BIG BROTHERS
BIG SISTERS OF AMERICA on the interested parties in this action by placing a true copy
7 thereof enclosed in sealed envelope(s) addressed as follows:
8 SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST
9 BY U.S. MAIL: I served the documents by enclosing them in an envelope and placing the
envelope for collection and mailing following our ordinary business practices. I am readily
10
familiar with this business’s practice of collection and processing of correspondence for mailing.
11 On the same day that correspondence is placed for collection and mailing, it is deposited in the
ordinary course of business with the United States Postal Service in a sealed envelope with
12 postage fully prepaid.
19100 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 800
MANLY, STEWART & FINALDI
13 X BY E-MAIL OR ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION I caused the documents to be sent to
Telephone: (949) 252-9990
the persons on the e-mail addresses as listed below. I did not receive, within a reasonable time
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
14
after the transmission, any electronic message or other indication that the transmission was
Irvine, CA 92612
15 unsuccessful.
16 BY FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION: The facsimile machine I used complied with
California Rules of Court 2.301 and no error was reported by the machine. Pursuant to rule
17 2.306(h), I caused the machine to print a record of the transmission, a copy of which is attached to
this proof of service.
18
19 BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY: I caused the above-referenced document(s) to be
delivered via overnight delivery, for delivery to the above address(es).
20
__X___(State) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
21 above is true and correct.
_____(Federal) I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this court
22
at whose direction, the service was made.
23
Executed on June 24, 2022, Irvine, California.
24
25
___________________________
26
Sadaf Anwar
27
28
1
PROOF OF SERVICE
SERVICE LIST
Alison M. Crane, Esq., Partner
Tara A. Murray, Esq.
Bledsoe, Diestel, Treppa & Crane LLP
180 Sansome, 5th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
T: 415-981-5411
F: 415-981-0352
acrane@bledsoelaw.com
tmurray@bledsoelaw.com
calendar@bledsoelaw.com
Counsel for Defendants Big Brothers Big Sisters of America
PAUL CALEO
pcaleo@grsm.com
MARK HEISEY
mheisey@grsm.com
khernandez@grsm.com
GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI,
LLP 1111 Broadway, Suite 1700
Oakland, CA 94607
Telephone: (510) 463-8600
Facsimile: (510) 984-1721
Attorneys for Defendant
BOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF MONTEREY COUNTY
2
PROOF OF SERVICE
EXHIBIT B
1 Alison M. Crane, SBN 197359
Tara A. Murray, SBN 284871
2 BLEDSOE, DIESTEL, TREPPA & CRANE LLP
180 Sansome Street, 5th Floor
3 San Francisco, California 94104-3713
Telephone: (415) 981-5411
4 Facsimile: (415) 981-0352
acrane@bledsoelaw.com
5 tmurray@bledsoelaw.com
6 Attorneys for Defendant BIG BROTHERS BIG SISTERS
OF AMERICA
7
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF MONTEREY
10
11 JANE BE DOE an individual, No. 21CV000805
12 Plaintiffs, DEFENDANT BIG BROTHERS BIG
SISTERS OF AMERICA’S RESPONSES
13 v. TO PLAINTIFF JANE BE DOE’S
SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET NO.
14 BIG BROTHERS BIG SISTERS OF TWO
AMERICA, a California corporation; BIG
15 BROTHERS BIG SISTERS OF SALINA,
a California corporation; JON DAVID
16 WOODY, an individual; and DOES 1-50,
inclusive,
17
Defendants.
18
19 PROPOUNDING PARTY: Plaintiff JANE BE DOE
20 ANSWERING PARTY: Defendant BIG BROTHERS BIG SISTERS OF AMERICA
21 SET NO.: Two (2)
22 Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.210 et seq., defendant BIG
23 BROTHERS BIG SISTERS OF AMERICA (“Defendant” or “Responding Party”), an individual,
24 whose discovery and investigation in this matter are continuing and not yet completed, and whose
25 discovery responses are given without prejudice to subsequent supplementation or amendment as
26 may be appropriate, responds to the first set of Special Interrogatories propounded by plaintiff
27 JANE BE DOE (“Plaintiff”), as follows:
28 Responding Party asserts the following general objections to the Special Interrogatories:
DEFENDANT BIG BROTHERS BIG SISTERS OF AMERICA’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF JANE BE
DOE’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET NO. TWO
1 GENERAL OBJECTIONS
2 Responding Party asserts the following general objections to the Special Interrogatories
3 propounded herein:
4 1. Responding Party objects to Plaintiff’s second set of Special Interrogatories, and to
5 each interrogatory individually, to the extent they expressly or impliedly purport to call for
6 information protected by the attorney-client privilege, attorney work product doctrine or similar
7 privileges.
8 2. Responding Party objects to Plaintiff’s second set of Special Interrogatories, and to
9 each interrogatory individually, on the grounds that they are overbroad, unduly burdensome and
10 oppressive in seeking to compel Responding Party to provide information and documents which
11 are neither known to nor possessed or controlled by Responding Party, but rather to and by other
12 persons or entities.
13 3. Responding Party objects to Plaintiff’s second set of Special Interrogatories, and to
14 each interrogatory individually, to the extent they expressly or impliedly seek information, which
15 is confidential or private in nature, as the disclosure of such information would violate
16 Responding Party’s right to privacy.
17 4. Responding Party objects to Plaintiff’s second set of Special Interrogatories, and to
18 each interrogatory individually, to the extent they expressly or implied seek information, which is
19 privileged in nature, as the disclosure of such information would violate Responding Party’s
20 constitutional rights and/or those rights otherwise recognized by law.
21 5. Responding Party objects to Plaintiff’s second set of Special Interrogatories, and to
22 each interrogatory individually, to the extent they purport to require disclosure of the content or
23 basis of an expert consultant’s investigations or expert testimony which Responding Party intends
24 to offer in this action. No mutual disclosure of experts has taken place and Responding Party has
25 not yet determined which experts will testify at the trial on Responding Party’s behalf.
26 6. Responding Party objects to Plaintiff’s second set of Special Interrogatories and to
27 each interrogatory contained therein, to the extent it purports to require Responding Party to take
28 measures above and beyond those required by the California Code of Civil Procedure sections
-2-
DEFENDANT BIG BROTHERS BIG SISTERS OF AMERICA’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF JANE BE
DOE’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET NO. TWO
1 2017.010 et seq., in responding to this discovery. Responding Party will comply with the
2 California Code of Civil Procedure in so responding.
3 7. Responding Party asserts that factual investigation, discovery and legal research
4 concerning the matters addressed in each interrogatory are ongoing and are not yet complete.
5 Therefore, Responding Party reserves the right to supplement or amend these responses as may be
6 appropriate, and to use and rely upon subsequent developed facts, information and legal theories,
7 at hearings and at the trial of this action as such information becomes available.
8 Responding Party objects to each interrogatory to the extent it seeks information in Plaintiff’s
9 possession or equally available to Plaintiff from public records or other sources other than
10 Responding Party.
11 These general objections are incorporated in each of the following specific responses.
12 RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES
13 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 57:
14 State the year(s) that PLAINTIFF was involved with BBBSMC.
15 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 57:
16 Plaintiff failed to serve the requisite declaration for these excess interrogatories and
17 pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.030, this Responding Party objects to this
18 interrogatory on the grounds that the limit has been exceeded.
19 Responding Party objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous,
20 and overbroad, particularly as to the undefined term “involved.” Responding Party objects to this
21 Interrogatory as argumentative and asserting facts that lack foundation regarding the definition of
22 “BBBSMC.” Responding Party objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information that
23 is equally available to Plaintiff.
24 Subject to and without waiving said objections, Responding Party states: on information
25 and belief, based on the records that BBBSA received from Big Brothers Big Sisters of Monterey
26 County, Plaintiff was matched, with Defendant John David Woody (“Woody”) and his wife on
27 March 24, 2000, to June 4, 2002, with the match being closed and re-opened during that time.
28 Discovery continues and this Responding Party reserves the right to amend this response.
-3-
DEFENDANT BIG BROTHERS BIG SISTERS OF AMERICA’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF JANE BE
DOE’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET NO. TWO
1 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 58:
2 State the year(s) that WOODY was involved with BBBSMC.
3 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 58:
4 Responding Party objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous,
5 and overbroad, particularly as to the undefined term “involved.” Responding Party objects to this
6 Interrogatory as argumentative and asserting facts that lack foundation regarding the definition of
7 “BBBSMC.” Responding Party objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information that
8 is equally available to Plaintiff.
9 Subject to and without waiving said objections, Responding Party states: on information
10 and belief, based on the records that BBBSA received from Big Brothers Big Sisters of Monterey
11 County, Woody and his wife (collectively hereinafter “the Woody’s”) together volunteered as a
12 “couples match” with Big Brothers Big Sisters of Monterey County from May 18, 1997, the
13 Woody’s last match was terminated on June 4, 2002, and the Woody’s were removed from the
14 waiting list on April 5, 2004. Discovery continues and this Responding Party reserves the right to
15 amend this response.
16 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 59:
17 IDENTIFY EACH local affiliate of BBBSA that WOODY served as a VOLUNTEER.
18 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 59:
19 Responding Party objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous,
20 and overbroad, particularly as to the terms “local affiliate of BBBSA” and the undefined term
21 “VOLUNTEER.” Responding Party objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information
22 that is equally available to Plaintiff. Responding Party objects to this Interrogatory as it is not
23 reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Responding Party objects
24 to this Interrogatory as the definition of the term “IDENTIFY” is unintelligible when applied to
25 an entity.
26 Subject to and without waiving said objections, Responding Party states: Woody
27 volunteered with Big Brothers Big Sisters of Monterey County. Big Brothers Big Sisters of
28 Monterey County records also indicate that Woody reported to Big Brothers Big Sisters of
-4-
DEFENDANT BIG BROTHERS BIG SISTERS OF AMERICA’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF JANE BE
DOE’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET NO. TWO
1 Monterey County that he had volunteered at Big Brothers Big Sisters of San Mateo County.
2 Discovery continues and this Responding Party reserves the right to amend this response.
3 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 60:
4 IDENTIFY EACH board member of YOUR local affiliate, BBBSMC, between the years
5 of 1999-2002.
6 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 60:
7 Responding Party objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous,
8 and overbroad, particularly as to the terms “local affiliate of BBBSA” and the undefined term
9 “VOLUNTEER.” Responding Party objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information
10 that is equally available to Plaintiff. Responding Party objects to this Interrogatory on the
11 grounds that it seeks overbroad private information of third parties, including dates of birth,
12 residential and business addresses and phone numbers in the term “IDENTIFY.” Responding
13 Party objects to this Interrogatory as it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
14 admissible evidence. Responding Party objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks a
15 compilation of information from documents that does not already exist and is equally available to
16 Plaintiff.
17 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 61:
18 IDENTIFY EACH minor participant of BBBSMC who was matched with WOODY.
19 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 61:
20 Responding Party objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous,
21 and overbroad in scope and time. Responding Party objects to this Interrogatory as argumentative
22 and asserting facts that lack foundation regarding the definition of “BBBSMC.” Responding Party
23 objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks private and protected information of third-
24 parties, including but not limited to the private protected information of third-party minor
25 children. Responding Party objects to this Interrogatory as it is not reasonably calculated to lead
26 to the discovery of admissible evidence.
27 ///
28 ///
-5-
DEFENDANT BIG BROTHERS BIG SISTERS OF AMERICA’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF JANE BE
DOE’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET NO. TWO
1 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 62:
2 IDENTIFY EACH minor participant of BBBSMC who alleged that WOODY engaged in
3 SEXUAL MISCONDUCT.
4 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 62:
5 Responding Party objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous,
6 and overbroad in scope and time. Responding Party objects to this Interrogatory as argumentative
7 and asserting facts that lack foundation regarding the definition of “BBBSMC.” Responding Party
8 objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks private and protected information of third-
9 parties, including but not limited to the private protected information of third-party minor
10 children. Responding Party objects to this Interrogatory as it is not reasonably calculated to lead
11 to the discovery of admissible evidence.
12 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 63:
13 IDENTIFY EACH draft, proposed, or recommended POLICY YOU provided to
14 BBBSMC RELATED TO SEXUAL MISCONDUCT between 1999 and 2011.
15 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 63:
16 Responding Party objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous,
17 and overbroad, particularly as to the terms “draft, proposed, or recommended POLICY” and
18 “provided.” Responding Party objects to this Interrogatory as overbroad in time. Responding
19 Party objects to this Interrogatory as it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
20 admissible evidence. Responding Party objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that
21 “IDENTIFY” seeks a compilation of information from documents that does not already exist and
22 is equally available to Plaintiff.
23 Subject to and without waiving said objections, Responding Party states: Local affiliates,
24 by agreement, have the full responsibility for risk management, establishment of local policies
25 and procedure, decisions concerning enrollment and supervision of staff, volunteers and littles,
26 and the implementation of policies and procedures in compliance with BBBSA standards. The
27 National Standards were previously produced by this Responding Party and the EMPOWER
28 Child Sexual Abuse & Prevention Program, which was available to independent affiliates
-6-
DEFENDANT BIG BROTHERS BIG SISTERS OF AMERICA’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF JANE BE
DOE’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET NO. TWO
1 beginning in 1989, was also previously produced by this Responding Party. The 1977
2 Clearinghouse Memo, 1982 Wolff Report, 1983 Education Institute, 1988 National Resource
3 Center re Abuse and Insurance, 1988 Perspectives on Abuse Report, 1988 Program Management
4 Manual, 1990 Policy Statement, 1991 Analysis of Abuse Reports, 1991 Report re Empower
5 Effectiveness, 1992 Summary of Child Abuse Reports, 1993 Report on EMPOWER use, 2000
6 Analysis of Reports from 1992-1999, 2003 Analysis for 1999-2003, 2005 Novak Memo on
7 Abuse are produced herewith. Discovery continues and this Responding Party reserves the right
8 to amend this response.
9 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 64:
10 IDENTIFY EACH draft, proposed, or recommended POLICY YOU provided to
11 BBBSMC RELATED TO training volunteers between 1999 and 2011.
12 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 64:
13 Responding Party objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous,
14 and overbroad, particularly as to the terms “draft, proposed, or recommended POLICY” and
15 “provided” and “training volunteers.” Responding Party objects to this Interrogatory as overbroad
16 in scope and time. Responding Party objects to this Interrogatory as it is not reasonably calculated
17 to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Responding Party objects to this Interrogatory to
18 the extent that “IDENTIFY” seeks a compilation of information from documents that does not
19
Preview
1 Alison M. Crane, SBN 197359 Tara A. Murray, SBN 284871 2 BLEDSOE, DIESTEL, TREPPA & CRANE LLP 180 Sansome Street, 5th Floor 3 San Francisco, California 94104-3713 Telephone: (415) 981-5411 4 Facsimile: (415) 981-0352 acrane@bledsoelaw.com 5 tmurray@bledsoelaw.com 6 Attorneys for Defendant BIG BROTHERS BIG SISTERS OF AMERICA, a California corporation 7 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF MONTEREY 10 11 JANE BE DOE an individual, Case No. 21CV000805 12 Plaintiffs, DECLARATION OF TARA A. MURRAY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT BIG 13 v. BROTHER BIG SISTES OF AMERICA’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF JANE BE 14 BIG BROTHERS BIG SISTERS OF DOE’S MOTION TO COMPEL AMERICA, a California corporation; BIG FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL 15 BROTHERS BIG SISTERS OF SALINA, INTERROGATORIES, SET TWO a California corporation; JON DAVID 16 WOODY, an individual; and DOES 1-50, Date: January 27, 2023 inclusive, Time: 8:30 a.m. 17 Judge: Thomas W. Wills Defendants. 18 Dept.: 15 19 20 I, Tara A. Murray, declare: 21 1. I am an attorney duly licensed to practice law before the courts in the State of 22 California, and an associate in the law firm of Bledsoe, Diestel, Treppa & Crane, LLP, attorney of 23 record herein for Defendant BIG BROTHERS BIG SISTERS OF AMERICA, a California 24 corporation (hereinafter “Defendant” or “BBBSA”) in the above-referenced matter. 25 2. I am personally familiar with the facts set forth herein and if called upon to testify 26 thereto in a court of law, I could and would do so competently. 27 3. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of Plaintiff’s Special 28 Interrogatories, Set Two, served on June 24, 2022. -1- DECLARATION OF TARA A. MURRAY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL RE SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET TWO 1 4. Attached hereto as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of BBBSA’s verified 2 responses to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories, Set Two, served on August 16, 2022. 3 5. Attached hereto as Exhibit C is a true and correct copy of the meet and confer 4 letter from defense counsel to Plaintiff dated September 13, 2022, in which defense counsel 5 responded to Plaintiff’s meet and confer letter dated September 9, 2022, in which Plaintiff 6 requested further responses, including Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories, Nos. 61 and 62. 7 6. On September 9, 2022, the undersigned for BBBSA and Plaintiff’s counsel, 8 Courtney Pendry, telephonically met and conferred regarding Plaintiff’s written discovery 9 requests, including Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories, Nos. 61 and 62. Despite a good faith effort, 10 counsel did not resolve the dispute regarding Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories, Nos. 61 and 62 as 11 BBBSA maintained its position that BBBSA does not have authority to waive third-party privacy 12 rights, also noting that this Court’s prior discovery orders required redaction of the information 13 sought by Plaintiffs. 14 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the 15 foregoing is true and correct, and that this Declaration is executed on January 13, 2023 at San 16 Francisco, California. 17 18 Tara A. Murray 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -2- DECLARATION OF TARA A. MURRAY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL RE SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET TWO EXHIBIT A 1 JOHN C. MANLY (State Bar No. 149080) jmanly@manlystewart.com 2 VINCE W. FINALDI, Esq. (State Bar No. 238279) vfinaldi@manlystewart.com 3 ALEX E. CUNNY, Esq. (State Bar No. 291567) acunny@manlystewart.com 4 COURTNEY P. PENDRY (State Bar No. 327382) cpendry@manlystewart.com 5 MANLY STEWART FINALDI 19100 Von Karman Avenue, 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 11 MANLY STEWART FINALDI 12 JANE BE DOE, Case No. 21CV000805 19100 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 800 PLAINTIFF JANE BE DOE’S SPECIAL Telephone (949) 252-9990 13 Plaintiff, Irvine, California 92612 INTERROGATORIES, SET TWO, TO 14 v. DEFENDANT BIG BROTHERS BIG SISTERS OF AMERICA 15 BIG BROTHERS BIG SISTERS OF AMERICA, a California corporation; BIG Judge: Thomas W. Wills 16 BROTHERS BIG SISTERS OF MONTEREY Dept.: 15 COUNTY, a California corporation; BOYS & 17 GIRLS CLUBS OF MONTEREY COUNTY, Action Filed: March 12, 2021 a California corporation; JON DAVID Trial Date: None 18 WOODY, an individual; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, 19 Defendant. 20 21 PROPOUNDING PARTY: Plaintiff, JANE BE DOE 22 RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant, BIG BROTHERS BIG SISTERS OF 23 AMERICA 24 SET NO.: TWO 25 TO DEFENDANT BIG BROTHERS BIG SISTERS OF AMERICA AND TO ITS 26 ATTORNEY OF RECORD: 27 Plaintiff JANE BE DOE (“Plaintiff” and/or “Propounding Party”), hereby requests that 28 Defendant BIG BROTHERS BIG SISTERS OF AMERICA (“Defendant”, “YOU” or PLAINTIFF JANE BE DOE’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET TWO, TO DEFENDANT BIG BROTHERS BIG SISTERS OF AMERICA 1 “YOUR(S)”), respond to this Second Set of Special Interrogatories pursuant to Code of Civil 2 Procedure Sections 2030.010 et seq. within thirty (30) days of service: 3 DEFINITIONS 4 1. The terms “YOU, ” “YOUR,” AND “BBBSA” shall mean the Responding Party to 5 the present set of Special Interrogatories, Defendant BIG BROTHERS BIG SISTERS OF 6 AMERICA. 7 2. The term “BBBSMC” shall mean YOUR local affiliate and named Defendant in this 8 matter, BIG BROTHERS BIG SISTERS OF MONTEREY COUNTY. 9 3. The term “WOODY” means the named defendant in this matter, Jon David Woody 10 4. The terms “PLAINTIFF” and “JANE BE DOE” shall refer to the Plaintiff, JANE BE 11 DOE, in the above referenced matter. MANLY STEWART FINALDI 12 5. The terms “ANY” and “ALL” shall include “each” and “every” within their 19100 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 800 Telephone (949) 252-9990 13 meanings. Irvine, California 92612 14 6. The term “IDENTIFY” with respect to a natural person shall mean to state the 15 complete name, date of birth, last known business AND residential address, AND last known 16 business AND residential telephone numbers. The term “IDENTIFY” with respect to real property 17 shall mean to state the business OR residential address OR legal description of the property. The 18 term “IDENTIFY” with respect to a DOCUMENT shall mean to describe the DOCUMENT by 19 listing its description, location and author(s), and date of creation. The term “IDENTIFY” with 20 respect to a lawsuit shall mean to state the case name, case number, and the Court in which the 21 lawsuit was filed. The term “IDENTIFY” with respect to a criminal investigation shall mean to state 22 the crime for which YOU were investigated, the law enforcement agency which investigated YOU, 23 and the outcome of the investigation. 24 7. The term “DESCRIBE” with respect to an allegation of SEXUAL MISCONDUCT 25 shall mean to state the date that you became aware of the allegation, the manner in which you 26 became aware of the allegation, and the specific act(s) of SEXUAL MISCONDUCT alleged. 27 8. The terms “RELATE TO,” “RELATING TO” “RELATED TO” and 28 “REGARDING” shall mean, in addition to the customary and usual meaning, constituting, 2 PLAINTIFF JANE BE DOE’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET TWO, TO DEFENDANT BIG BROTHERS BIG SISTERS OF AMERICA 1 comprising, supporting, diminishing, contradicting, discussing, referring to, reflecting, assessing, 2 recording, describing, or in any way relevant to, or discoverable in whole or in part. 3 9. The terms “DOCUMENT” and “DOCUMENTS” shall mean any and all manner of 4 written, typed, printed, reproduced, filmed, OR recorded material and all photographs, pictures, 5 plans, or other representations of any kind of anything pertaining, describing, referring, or relating, 6 directly or indirectly, in whole or in part, to the subject matter of each discovery request and the 7 term includes, but is not limited to: papers, books, journals, ledgers, statements, bank statements, 8 property title reports, title records, recording of title, memoranda, reports, invoices, work sheets, 9 work papers, notes, transcriptions of notes, letters, correspondence, abstracts, checks, diagrams, 10 plans, blueprints, schematics, software programs, films, photographs, diaries, lists, logs, 11 publications, advertisements, instructions, minutes, orders, purchase orders, messages, resumes, MANLY STEWART FINALDI 12 applications, summaries, agreements, contracts, telegrams, e-mails, instant messages, text messages, 19100 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 800 Telephone (949) 252-9990 13 telexes, cables, recordings, audio tapes, magnetic tapes, visual tapes, transcriptions of tapes or Irvine, California 92612 14 records, computer tapes, books, speeches, pamphlets, leaflets, flyers, announcements, bulletins, 15 periodicals, agenda, reports, opinions, charges, tabulations, digests, compilations, studies, expert 16 analyses, evaluations, manuals, guides, research papers, articles, computer files, computer hard 17 drives, or other writings or tangible things as defined by Section 250 of the Evidence Code, in the 18 possession, custody or control of YOU, YOUR attorneys, agents, servants, representatives, 19 investigators, subsidiaries, boards, directors, affiliated business entities and others who have 20 obtained possession, custody or control. 21 10. The term “COMMUNICATION” shall mean any correspondence in any manner, 22 whether by memorandum, letter, memorializations and/or transcriptions of conversations, 23 handwritten note, typewritten note, mail, fax, personal delivery, messenger, e-mail, electronic 24 communication of any type or sort, instant message, text message, modem or other electronic, 25 mechanical or manual means. 26 11. The terms “SEXUAL MISCONDUCT,” “MOLESTED,” “MOLEST” and 27 “MOLESTATION” shall mean any alleged, suspected, OR proven unlawful sexual conduct, 28 including sexual abuse of minors, sexual behavior, childhood sexual abuse, sexual exploitation, 3 PLAINTIFF JANE BE DOE’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET TWO, TO DEFENDANT BIG BROTHERS BIG SISTERS OF AMERICA 1 sexual assault, sexual battery, sexual touching, sexual harassment, sexual communications, OR 2 molestation, including but not limited to: anal intercourse, sodomy, vaginal intercourse, cunnilingus, 3 fellatio, digital penetration, penetration with a foreign object, masturbation, fondling, groping, 4 fondling OR groping of the buttocks, fondling OR groping of the breasts, fondling OR groping of 5 the genitals, massaging, stimulated intercourse, frottage, inter-femoral intercourse, kissing of parts 6 of the body in a sexual manner, hugging in a sexual manner, sadomasochism, creating OR viewing 7 OR providing child pornography, group sex, sexual conversation, sleeping together, OR any other 8 form of unlawful sexual conduct whatsoever. 9 12. the term "SEXUAL ACTIVITY" is defined to mean any sexual contact or behavior, 10 including kissing, fondling, vaginal intercourse, masturbation, anal intercourse, cunnilingus, 11 fellatio, digital penetration, penetration with a foreign object, groping, massaging, simulated MANLY STEWART FINALDI 12 intercourse, frottage, inter-femoral intercourse, hugging in a sexual manner, sadomasochism, 19100 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 800 Telephone (949) 252-9990 13 providing pornography, group sex, sexual conversation, sleeping together, "sexting," sexual Irvine, California 92612 14 photography, OR any other form of sexual activity whatsoever. 15 13. The term “DATE” means month, day and year. 16 14. The term “POLICY" shall mean ANY policy OR procedure, whether formal OR 17 informal and whether written OR oral. 18 SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES 19 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 57: 20 State the year(s) that PLAINTIFF was involved with BBBSMC. 21 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 58: 22 State the year(s) that WOODY was involved with BBBSMC. 23 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 59: 24 IDENTIFY EACH local affiliate of BBBSA that WOODY served as a VOLUNTEER. 25 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 60: 26 IDENTIFY EACH board member of YOUR local affiliate, BBBSMC, between the years 27 of 1999-2002. 28 /// 4 PLAINTIFF JANE BE DOE’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET TWO, TO DEFENDANT BIG BROTHERS BIG SISTERS OF AMERICA 1 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 61: 2 IDENTIFY EACH minor participant of BBBSMC who was matched with WOODY. 3 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 62: 4 IDENTIFY EACH minor participant of BBBSMC who alleged that WOODY engaged in 5 SEXUAL MISCONDUCT. 6 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 63: 7 IDENTIFY EACH draft, proposed, or recommended POLICY YOU provided to 8 BBBSMC RELATED TO SEXUAL MISCONDUCT between 1999 and 2011. 9 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 64: 10 IDENTIFY EACH draft, proposed, or recommended POLICY YOU provided to 11 BBBSMC RELATED TO training volunteers between 1999 and 2011. MANLY STEWART FINALDI 12 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 65: 19100 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 800 Telephone (949) 252-9990 13 IDENTIFY EACH draft, proposed, or recommended POLICY YOU provided to Irvine, California 92612 14 BBBSMC RELATED TO screening and/or vetting volunteers between 1999 and 2011. 15 16 17 18 DATED: June 24, 2022 MANLY STEWART FINALDI 19 20 By: 21 COURTNEY P. PENDRY Attorneys for Plaintiff, Jane BE Doe 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 5 PLAINTIFF JANE BE DOE’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET TWO, TO DEFENDANT BIG BROTHERS BIG SISTERS OF AMERICA 1 PROOF OF SERVICE 2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ORANGE 3 I am employed in the county of Orange, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and 4 not a party to the within action; my business address is 19100 Von Karman Ave., Suite 800, Irvine, CA 92612. 5 On June 24, 2022, I served the foregoing document described as PLAINTIFF JANE BE 6 DOE’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET TWO, TO DEFENDANT BIG BROTHERS BIG SISTERS OF AMERICA on the interested parties in this action by placing a true copy 7 thereof enclosed in sealed envelope(s) addressed as follows: 8 SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST 9 BY U.S. MAIL: I served the documents by enclosing them in an envelope and placing the envelope for collection and mailing following our ordinary business practices. I am readily 10 familiar with this business’s practice of collection and processing of correspondence for mailing. 11 On the same day that correspondence is placed for collection and mailing, it is deposited in the ordinary course of business with the United States Postal Service in a sealed envelope with 12 postage fully prepaid. 19100 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 800 MANLY, STEWART & FINALDI 13 X BY E-MAIL OR ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION I caused the documents to be sent to Telephone: (949) 252-9990 the persons on the e-mail addresses as listed below. I did not receive, within a reasonable time ATTORNEYS AT LAW 14 after the transmission, any electronic message or other indication that the transmission was Irvine, CA 92612 15 unsuccessful. 16 BY FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION: The facsimile machine I used complied with California Rules of Court 2.301 and no error was reported by the machine. Pursuant to rule 17 2.306(h), I caused the machine to print a record of the transmission, a copy of which is attached to this proof of service. 18 19 BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY: I caused the above-referenced document(s) to be delivered via overnight delivery, for delivery to the above address(es). 20 __X___(State) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the 21 above is true and correct. _____(Federal) I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this court 22 at whose direction, the service was made. 23 Executed on June 24, 2022, Irvine, California. 24 25 ___________________________ 26 Sadaf Anwar 27 28 1 PROOF OF SERVICE SERVICE LIST Alison M. Crane, Esq., Partner Tara A. Murray, Esq. Bledsoe, Diestel, Treppa & Crane LLP 180 Sansome, 5th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 T: 415-981-5411 F: 415-981-0352 acrane@bledsoelaw.com tmurray@bledsoelaw.com calendar@bledsoelaw.com Counsel for Defendants Big Brothers Big Sisters of America PAUL CALEO pcaleo@grsm.com MARK HEISEY mheisey@grsm.com khernandez@grsm.com GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP 1111 Broadway, Suite 1700 Oakland, CA 94607 Telephone: (510) 463-8600 Facsimile: (510) 984-1721 Attorneys for Defendant BOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF MONTEREY COUNTY 2 PROOF OF SERVICE EXHIBIT B 1 Alison M. Crane, SBN 197359 Tara A. Murray, SBN 284871 2 BLEDSOE, DIESTEL, TREPPA & CRANE LLP 180 Sansome Street, 5th Floor 3 San Francisco, California 94104-3713 Telephone: (415) 981-5411 4 Facsimile: (415) 981-0352 acrane@bledsoelaw.com 5 tmurray@bledsoelaw.com 6 Attorneys for Defendant BIG BROTHERS BIG SISTERS OF AMERICA 7 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF MONTEREY 10 11 JANE BE DOE an individual, No. 21CV000805 12 Plaintiffs, DEFENDANT BIG BROTHERS BIG SISTERS OF AMERICA’S RESPONSES 13 v. TO PLAINTIFF JANE BE DOE’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET NO. 14 BIG BROTHERS BIG SISTERS OF TWO AMERICA, a California corporation; BIG 15 BROTHERS BIG SISTERS OF SALINA, a California corporation; JON DAVID 16 WOODY, an individual; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, 17 Defendants. 18 19 PROPOUNDING PARTY: Plaintiff JANE BE DOE 20 ANSWERING PARTY: Defendant BIG BROTHERS BIG SISTERS OF AMERICA 21 SET NO.: Two (2) 22 Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.210 et seq., defendant BIG 23 BROTHERS BIG SISTERS OF AMERICA (“Defendant” or “Responding Party”), an individual, 24 whose discovery and investigation in this matter are continuing and not yet completed, and whose 25 discovery responses are given without prejudice to subsequent supplementation or amendment as 26 may be appropriate, responds to the first set of Special Interrogatories propounded by plaintiff 27 JANE BE DOE (“Plaintiff”), as follows: 28 Responding Party asserts the following general objections to the Special Interrogatories: DEFENDANT BIG BROTHERS BIG SISTERS OF AMERICA’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF JANE BE DOE’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET NO. TWO 1 GENERAL OBJECTIONS 2 Responding Party asserts the following general objections to the Special Interrogatories 3 propounded herein: 4 1. Responding Party objects to Plaintiff’s second set of Special Interrogatories, and to 5 each interrogatory individually, to the extent they expressly or impliedly purport to call for 6 information protected by the attorney-client privilege, attorney work product doctrine or similar 7 privileges. 8 2. Responding Party objects to Plaintiff’s second set of Special Interrogatories, and to 9 each interrogatory individually, on the grounds that they are overbroad, unduly burdensome and 10 oppressive in seeking to compel Responding Party to provide information and documents which 11 are neither known to nor possessed or controlled by Responding Party, but rather to and by other 12 persons or entities. 13 3. Responding Party objects to Plaintiff’s second set of Special Interrogatories, and to 14 each interrogatory individually, to the extent they expressly or impliedly seek information, which 15 is confidential or private in nature, as the disclosure of such information would violate 16 Responding Party’s right to privacy. 17 4. Responding Party objects to Plaintiff’s second set of Special Interrogatories, and to 18 each interrogatory individually, to the extent they expressly or implied seek information, which is 19 privileged in nature, as the disclosure of such information would violate Responding Party’s 20 constitutional rights and/or those rights otherwise recognized by law. 21 5. Responding Party objects to Plaintiff’s second set of Special Interrogatories, and to 22 each interrogatory individually, to the extent they purport to require disclosure of the content or 23 basis of an expert consultant’s investigations or expert testimony which Responding Party intends 24 to offer in this action. No mutual disclosure of experts has taken place and Responding Party has 25 not yet determined which experts will testify at the trial on Responding Party’s behalf. 26 6. Responding Party objects to Plaintiff’s second set of Special Interrogatories and to 27 each interrogatory contained therein, to the extent it purports to require Responding Party to take 28 measures above and beyond those required by the California Code of Civil Procedure sections -2- DEFENDANT BIG BROTHERS BIG SISTERS OF AMERICA’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF JANE BE DOE’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET NO. TWO 1 2017.010 et seq., in responding to this discovery. Responding Party will comply with the 2 California Code of Civil Procedure in so responding. 3 7. Responding Party asserts that factual investigation, discovery and legal research 4 concerning the matters addressed in each interrogatory are ongoing and are not yet complete. 5 Therefore, Responding Party reserves the right to supplement or amend these responses as may be 6 appropriate, and to use and rely upon subsequent developed facts, information and legal theories, 7 at hearings and at the trial of this action as such information becomes available. 8 Responding Party objects to each interrogatory to the extent it seeks information in Plaintiff’s 9 possession or equally available to Plaintiff from public records or other sources other than 10 Responding Party. 11 These general objections are incorporated in each of the following specific responses. 12 RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES 13 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 57: 14 State the year(s) that PLAINTIFF was involved with BBBSMC. 15 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 57: 16 Plaintiff failed to serve the requisite declaration for these excess interrogatories and 17 pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.030, this Responding Party objects to this 18 interrogatory on the grounds that the limit has been exceeded. 19 Responding Party objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, 20 and overbroad, particularly as to the undefined term “involved.” Responding Party objects to this 21 Interrogatory as argumentative and asserting facts that lack foundation regarding the definition of 22 “BBBSMC.” Responding Party objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information that 23 is equally available to Plaintiff. 24 Subject to and without waiving said objections, Responding Party states: on information 25 and belief, based on the records that BBBSA received from Big Brothers Big Sisters of Monterey 26 County, Plaintiff was matched, with Defendant John David Woody (“Woody”) and his wife on 27 March 24, 2000, to June 4, 2002, with the match being closed and re-opened during that time. 28 Discovery continues and this Responding Party reserves the right to amend this response. -3- DEFENDANT BIG BROTHERS BIG SISTERS OF AMERICA’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF JANE BE DOE’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET NO. TWO 1 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 58: 2 State the year(s) that WOODY was involved with BBBSMC. 3 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 58: 4 Responding Party objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, 5 and overbroad, particularly as to the undefined term “involved.” Responding Party objects to this 6 Interrogatory as argumentative and asserting facts that lack foundation regarding the definition of 7 “BBBSMC.” Responding Party objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information that 8 is equally available to Plaintiff. 9 Subject to and without waiving said objections, Responding Party states: on information 10 and belief, based on the records that BBBSA received from Big Brothers Big Sisters of Monterey 11 County, Woody and his wife (collectively hereinafter “the Woody’s”) together volunteered as a 12 “couples match” with Big Brothers Big Sisters of Monterey County from May 18, 1997, the 13 Woody’s last match was terminated on June 4, 2002, and the Woody’s were removed from the 14 waiting list on April 5, 2004. Discovery continues and this Responding Party reserves the right to 15 amend this response. 16 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 59: 17 IDENTIFY EACH local affiliate of BBBSA that WOODY served as a VOLUNTEER. 18 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 59: 19 Responding Party objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, 20 and overbroad, particularly as to the terms “local affiliate of BBBSA” and the undefined term 21 “VOLUNTEER.” Responding Party objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information 22 that is equally available to Plaintiff. Responding Party objects to this Interrogatory as it is not 23 reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Responding Party objects 24 to this Interrogatory as the definition of the term “IDENTIFY” is unintelligible when applied to 25 an entity. 26 Subject to and without waiving said objections, Responding Party states: Woody 27 volunteered with Big Brothers Big Sisters of Monterey County. Big Brothers Big Sisters of 28 Monterey County records also indicate that Woody reported to Big Brothers Big Sisters of -4- DEFENDANT BIG BROTHERS BIG SISTERS OF AMERICA’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF JANE BE DOE’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET NO. TWO 1 Monterey County that he had volunteered at Big Brothers Big Sisters of San Mateo County. 2 Discovery continues and this Responding Party reserves the right to amend this response. 3 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 60: 4 IDENTIFY EACH board member of YOUR local affiliate, BBBSMC, between the years 5 of 1999-2002. 6 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 60: 7 Responding Party objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, 8 and overbroad, particularly as to the terms “local affiliate of BBBSA” and the undefined term 9 “VOLUNTEER.” Responding Party objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information 10 that is equally available to Plaintiff. Responding Party objects to this Interrogatory on the 11 grounds that it seeks overbroad private information of third parties, including dates of birth, 12 residential and business addresses and phone numbers in the term “IDENTIFY.” Responding 13 Party objects to this Interrogatory as it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of 14 admissible evidence. Responding Party objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks a 15 compilation of information from documents that does not already exist and is equally available to 16 Plaintiff. 17 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 61: 18 IDENTIFY EACH minor participant of BBBSMC who was matched with WOODY. 19 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 61: 20 Responding Party objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, 21 and overbroad in scope and time. Responding Party objects to this Interrogatory as argumentative 22 and asserting facts that lack foundation regarding the definition of “BBBSMC.” Responding Party 23 objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks private and protected information of third- 24 parties, including but not limited to the private protected information of third-party minor 25 children. Responding Party objects to this Interrogatory as it is not reasonably calculated to lead 26 to the discovery of admissible evidence. 27 /// 28 /// -5- DEFENDANT BIG BROTHERS BIG SISTERS OF AMERICA’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF JANE BE DOE’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET NO. TWO 1 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 62: 2 IDENTIFY EACH minor participant of BBBSMC who alleged that WOODY engaged in 3 SEXUAL MISCONDUCT. 4 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 62: 5 Responding Party objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, 6 and overbroad in scope and time. Responding Party objects to this Interrogatory as argumentative 7 and asserting facts that lack foundation regarding the definition of “BBBSMC.” Responding Party 8 objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks private and protected information of third- 9 parties, including but not limited to the private protected information of third-party minor 10 children. Responding Party objects to this Interrogatory as it is not reasonably calculated to lead 11 to the discovery of admissible evidence. 12 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 63: 13 IDENTIFY EACH draft, proposed, or recommended POLICY YOU provided to 14 BBBSMC RELATED TO SEXUAL MISCONDUCT between 1999 and 2011. 15 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 63: 16 Responding Party objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, 17 and overbroad, particularly as to the terms “draft, proposed, or recommended POLICY” and 18 “provided.” Responding Party objects to this Interrogatory as overbroad in time. Responding 19 Party objects to this Interrogatory as it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of 20 admissible evidence. Responding Party objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that 21 “IDENTIFY” seeks a compilation of information from documents that does not already exist and 22 is equally available to Plaintiff. 23 Subject to and without waiving said objections, Responding Party states: Local affiliates, 24 by agreement, have the full responsibility for risk management, establishment of local policies 25 and procedure, decisions concerning enrollment and supervision of staff, volunteers and littles, 26 and the implementation of policies and procedures in compliance with BBBSA standards. The 27 National Standards were previously produced by this Responding Party and the EMPOWER 28 Child Sexual Abuse & Prevention Program, which was available to independent affiliates -6- DEFENDANT BIG BROTHERS BIG SISTERS OF AMERICA’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF JANE BE DOE’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET NO. TWO 1 beginning in 1989, was also previously produced by this Responding Party. The 1977 2 Clearinghouse Memo, 1982 Wolff Report, 1983 Education Institute, 1988 National Resource 3 Center re Abuse and Insurance, 1988 Perspectives on Abuse Report, 1988 Program Management 4 Manual, 1990 Policy Statement, 1991 Analysis of Abuse Reports, 1991 Report re Empower 5 Effectiveness, 1992 Summary of Child Abuse Reports, 1993 Report on EMPOWER use, 2000 6 Analysis of Reports from 1992-1999, 2003 Analysis for 1999-2003, 2005 Novak Memo on 7 Abuse are produced herewith. Discovery continues and this Responding Party reserves the right 8 to amend this response. 9 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 64: 10 IDENTIFY EACH draft, proposed, or recommended POLICY YOU provided to 11 BBBSMC RELATED TO training volunteers between 1999 and 2011. 12 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 64: 13 Responding Party objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, 14 and overbroad, particularly as to the terms “draft, proposed, or recommended POLICY” and 15 “provided” and “training volunteers.” Responding Party objects to this Interrogatory as overbroad 16 in scope and time. Responding Party objects to this Interrogatory as it is not reasonably calculated 17 to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Responding Party objects to this Interrogatory to 18 the extent that “IDENTIFY” seeks a compilation of information from documents that does not 19