On October 08, 2021 a
Motion,Ex Parte
was filed
involving a dispute between
Baker, Lucy,
Roe, John,
Roe, Jane,
and
Chaffey Joint Union High School District,
Does 1-50, Inclusive,
Riden, David Arthur,
for Complex Civil Unlimited
in the District Court of San Bernardino County.
Preview
Jason S. Hartley, Esq. (SBN 192514)
Jason M. Lindner, Esq. (SBN 21 1451)
HARTLEY LLP
101 West Broadway, Suite 820
San Diego, California 92101
UI-bbJN
(619) 400-5822
hartley@hartleyllp. com F I LE D
SUPERIOR counT 0F CALIFORNIA
lindner@hartleyllp.com COUNTY 0F SAN BERNARDINO
Daniel R. Karon
KARON LLC MAR 12 202‘}
700 West St. Clair Avenue, Suite 200
Cleveland, OH 441 13
<29; N. HChy
(216) 622-1 851
\OOOVQ
BY: U Jani N. Urbarb Deputy
dkaron@karonllc.com
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
10
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO $(fl0
11
LUCY BAKER and JOHN ROE, guardian ad Case No. Clvs32128630 SC‘ZOZ‘FWfi/W
12 litem 0f JANE ROE, a minor, individually,
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Assigned For All Purposes T0 The Hon. Joseph
13
T. Ortiz
14 Plaintiff,
15 V.
PLAINTIFFSBAKER AND ROE’S
OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STAY
DISCOVERY
16
CHAFFEY JOINT UNION HIGH SCHOOL
DISTRICT, DAVID A. RIDEN, and DOES Date: March 25, 2024
17
1-50, inclusive, Time: 9:00 a.m.
Place: S-17
18
Defendants.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY
I. INTRODUCTION
Defendant David A. Riden (“Riden”)’s Motion asks for a complete stay of all discovery
in the matter against him based on the supposed risk 0f additional criminal prosecution.
However, his Motion provides no actual evidence of any additional risk. The criminal case
against him has been closed since November of 2022, when Riden pled guilty and was
convicted. It has been more than a year since his conviction, during which time this Court has
already ordered Riden to respond to discovery. No additional charges have been filed, nor has
\OOONON
there been any announcement of additional investigation into his criminal activities. Riden does
not state any actual knowledge that an additional investigation is happening. Riden should not be
10 allowed t0 flaunt this Court’s discovery orders with impunity and avoid all discovery in this civil
11 action based solely on his speculation that additional charges could be brought.
12 The base fact remains: Riden pled guilty in the associated criminal case. In so doing,
13 Riden explicitly, both in writing and in open court, waived his Fifth Amendment rights regarding
14 the charges against him. He cannot be prosecuted for the same crime again. His Motion is little
15 more than another attempt to Shirk his discovery obligations in this matter — something he has
16 continued to do even after this Court ordered him to respond t0 Plaintiff Lucy Baker and John
17 Roe’s (“Plaintiffs”) prior discovery requests. His Motion is entirely frivolous and should be
18 denied. What utility is an order of the court if it can simply be ignored for 10 or more months
19 simply by taking unprecedented and ridiculous positions unsupported by the law?
20 II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
21 On August 30, 2021, a Felony Complaint was filed against Riden for one count of
22 Possession of Child or Youth Pornography (Penal Code § 311.1 1(a)); and two counts of Using
23 Minor for Sex Acts (Penal Code § 31 l.4(c)). See Felony Complaint, attached to the Declaration
24 of Jason M. Lindner in Support of Opposition to Motion to Stay (“Lindner Decl.”) as Exhibit A.
25 That complaint was superseded by a First Amended Felony Complaint 0n November 16, 2021,
26 containing those same three felony counts, as well as additional misdemeanor counts for
27 Unauthorized Invasion of Privacy; Peeking After a Prior 0r Minor Victim (Penal Code
§
28 647G)(1)) and Disorderly Conduct by Secretly Photographing Body 0r Undergarments With
2
PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY
Document Filed Date
March 12, 2024
Case Filing Date
October 08, 2021
Category
Complex Civil Unlimited
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
Jason S. Hartley, Esq. (SBN 192514) Jason M. Lindner, Esq. (SBN 21 1451) HARTLEY LLP 101 West Broadway, Suite 820 San Diego, California 92101 UI-bbJN (619) 400-5822 hartley@hartleyllp. com F I LE D SUPERIOR counT 0F CALIFORNIA lindner@hartleyllp.com COUNTY 0F SAN BERNARDINO Daniel R. Karon KARON LLC MAR 12 202‘} 700 West St. Clair Avenue, Suite 200 Cleveland, OH 441 13 <29; N. HChy (216) 622-1 851 \OOOVQ BY: U Jani N. Urbarb Deputy dkaron@karonllc.com SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO $(fl0 11 LUCY BAKER and JOHN ROE, guardian ad Case No. Clvs32128630 SC‘ZOZ‘FWfi/W 12 litem 0f JANE ROE, a minor, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Assigned For All Purposes T0 The Hon. Joseph 13 T. Ortiz 14 Plaintiff, 15 V. PLAINTIFFSBAKER AND ROE’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY 16 CHAFFEY JOINT UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT, DAVID A. RIDEN, and DOES Date: March 25, 2024 17 1-50, inclusive, Time: 9:00 a.m. Place: S-17 18 Defendants. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY I. INTRODUCTION Defendant David A. Riden (“Riden”)’s Motion asks for a complete stay of all discovery in the matter against him based on the supposed risk 0f additional criminal prosecution. However, his Motion provides no actual evidence of any additional risk. The criminal case against him has been closed since November of 2022, when Riden pled guilty and was convicted. It has been more than a year since his conviction, during which time this Court has already ordered Riden to respond to discovery. No additional charges have been filed, nor has \OOONON there been any announcement of additional investigation into his criminal activities. Riden does not state any actual knowledge that an additional investigation is happening. Riden should not be 10 allowed t0 flaunt this Court’s discovery orders with impunity and avoid all discovery in this civil 11 action based solely on his speculation that additional charges could be brought. 12 The base fact remains: Riden pled guilty in the associated criminal case. In so doing, 13 Riden explicitly, both in writing and in open court, waived his Fifth Amendment rights regarding 14 the charges against him. He cannot be prosecuted for the same crime again. His Motion is little 15 more than another attempt to Shirk his discovery obligations in this matter — something he has 16 continued to do even after this Court ordered him to respond t0 Plaintiff Lucy Baker and John 17 Roe’s (“Plaintiffs”) prior discovery requests. His Motion is entirely frivolous and should be 18 denied. What utility is an order of the court if it can simply be ignored for 10 or more months 19 simply by taking unprecedented and ridiculous positions unsupported by the law? 20 II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 21 On August 30, 2021, a Felony Complaint was filed against Riden for one count of 22 Possession of Child or Youth Pornography (Penal Code § 311.1 1(a)); and two counts of Using 23 Minor for Sex Acts (Penal Code § 31 l.4(c)). See Felony Complaint, attached to the Declaration 24 of Jason M. Lindner in Support of Opposition to Motion to Stay (“Lindner Decl.”) as Exhibit A. 25 That complaint was superseded by a First Amended Felony Complaint 0n November 16, 2021, 26 containing those same three felony counts, as well as additional misdemeanor counts for 27 Unauthorized Invasion of Privacy; Peeking After a Prior 0r Minor Victim (Penal Code § 28 647G)(1)) and Disorderly Conduct by Secretly Photographing Body 0r Undergarments With 2 PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY