Preview
Superior Court of California
County of Kern
Bakersfield Department 17
Date: 02/22/2021 Time: 8:30 AM - 12:00 PM
BCV-19-101099
E.H. VS KERN HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT
Courtroom Staff
Honorable: Thomas S. Clark Clerk: Linda K. Hall
Court reporter: . None Bailiff: Deputy Sheriff
Interpreter: Language of:
Court Call
NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: MOTION TO COMPEL
Hearing Start Time: 8:40 AM
The above entitled cause came on regularly on this date and time with parties and/or counsel appearing as
reflected.
No appearance by counsel for Plaintiff.
Counsel Nazli Alimi appeared via court call on behalf of Defendant(s).
Submitted on the pleadings.
The Court makes the following findings and orders:
Plaintiff seeks an order compelling Defendant Leo Holland to provide further responses to Form Interrogatories,
Set One, no. 4.1, and Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, nos. 1-6, 8, 9, 14-18, 22-53, and 58-60[ ].
With respect to Form Interrogatory no. 4.1 and Requests for Production nos. 1-6, 8, 9, 14-18, 22, 58-60, Defendant
Holland already provided further responses on December 28, 2020, although the verification for such further
responses remained outstanding at the time this motion was filed and Plaintiff seeks an order compelling such
verification. The motion is granted with respect to Form Interrogatory no. 4.1 and Requests for Production nos. 1-
6, 8, 9, 14-18, 22, 58-60 only in that Defendant is ordered to provide such verification by 03/17/2021. If a
verification has been provided prior to this hearing, the motion is denied as moot at this time. Once the
verification has been provided, should Plaintiff still deem the further responses to be deficient, Plaintiff remains
free to file another motion to compel if further good faith meet and confer efforts are unsuccessful.
In addition, with respect to Requests for Production nos. 58-60, Defendant's initial responses indicated that
responsive documents would be provided. To the extent such documents have not yet been provided, Defendant
MINUTES
Page 1 of 5
E.H. VS KERN HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT BCV-19-101099
is ordered to make such production by [insert date]. Privilege objections are preserved and to the extent any
documents are withheld from production based on privilege grounds, Defendant shall serve a privilege log
concurrently with the production.
Regarding Requests for Production nos. 23-53, these requests seek educational and disciplinary records of the
students, other than Plaintiff, that were allegedly involved in the fight that gave rise to this lawsuit. The
information sought is directly relevant to this case. Clear admissibility at trial is not the threshold for discovery.
Unlike the requests discussed above, Defendant Holland has provided no further responses to these requests to
date. Defendant's objections included privacy, the California Education Code and the federal Family Educational
Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA).
At deposition Defendant Leo Holland testified that prior to the deposition and in preparation for the deposition he
reviewed incident reports regarding Esben Hernandez and stated that what he reviewed was relative to a fight that
occurred with Esben in 2017 and 2018. Mr. Holland testified that he also reviewed disciplinary records to prepare
for the deposition, specifically, the disciplinary records with regards to the battery involving Esben in 2015 and also
the fight involving Esben in 2017 as well as some of the disciplinary records of the students involved in the 2018
battery. Mr. Holland went on to testify that he could not recall any disciplinary issues with regard to any of the
students involved. In other words. While the word "refresh" was not specifically used in the questions by the
deposing attorney, Mr. Holland admitted to reviewing records in preparation for his deposition and then testified
as to his knowledge in the remainder of the deposition. The fact that Mr. Holland could not recall any disciplinary
issues may mean that the records he reviewed did not reveal any disciplinary issues; Plaintiff's counsel is entitled
to find out. Disclosure of the records reviewed appears appropriate not only pursuant to Evidence Code section
771, but also pursuant to the Discovery Act. Furthermore, both the Education Code and FERPA permit disclosure of
education records pursuant to court order, as admitted by the opposition.
Accordingly, the motion for further verified code-compliant responses to Requests for Production, Set One, nos.
23-53 is granted. Privilege objections are preserved and to the extent any responsive document is withheld from
production on privilege grounds, a privilege log shall be produced. If after a diligent search and reasonable inquiry,
Defendant is unable to produce responsive records for any reason, Defendant shall so state in a code-compliant
verified further response in compliance with CCP section 2031.230. Defendant's further code compliant verified
response shall be provided by 03/17/2021.
Martinez motion
Plaintiff seeks an order compelling Defendant Martinez to provide further verified responses to Form
Interrogatories, Set One, no. 4.1, and Requests for Production, Set One, nos. 1, 6, 17-37. MOOT
It appears that Defendant Martinez already provided further responses, albeit unverified, to Form Interrogatory
4.1 and Requests for Production 1-6. Defense counsel's opposition represents that the missing verification for
these further responses has now been provided. Accordingly, the motion is moot in this regard. If Plaintiff deems
these further responses as remaining deficient, Plaintiff is free to file a motion to compel further, as counsel deems
necessary and appropriate.
With respect to Requests for Production nos. 17-37, these requests pertain to student educational and disciplinary
records, similar to the requests posed to Mr. Holland discussed above. Plaintiff also deposed Mr. Martinez, but the
deposition testimony quotes in the moving brief cites to Mr. Holland's testimony rather than Mr. Martinez's
testimony. A review of the deposition excerpts of Mr. Martinez provided with the moving papers does not reveal
any deposition testimony of Mr. Martinez regarding any review of documents in preparation for his deposition.
Furthermore, the documents sought via Mr. Martinez appear to be similar to those sought via Mr. Holland. The
motion as to Mr. Martinez is denied at this time, without prejudice to counsel being allowed to propound
MINUTES
Page 2 of 5
E.H. VS KERN HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT BCV-19-101099
additional discovery as necessary and appropriate.
Clerk's minutes will be the order of the court.
Copy of clerk's minutes emailed to all parties as stated on the attached declaration.
Minute order notice.
FUTURE HEARINGS:
May 07, 2021 10:00 AM Mandatory Settlement Conference
Schuett, Stephen D.
Sheriff, Deputy
Bakersfield Department 18
June 14, 2021 9:00 AM Jury Trial
Clark, Thomas S.
Bakersfield Department 17
Sheriff, Deputy
MINUTES FINALIZED BY: LINDA HALL ON: FEBRUARY 22, 2021
MINUTES
Page 3 of 5
E.H. VS KERN HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT BCV-19-101099
E.H. VS KERN HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT
BCV-19-101099
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING AND/OR EMAIL*********************
The undersigned, of said Kern County, certify: That I am a Deputy Clerk of the Superior Court of the State of California,
in and for the County of Kern, that I am a citizen of the United States, over 18 years of age, I reside in or am employed in
the County of Kern, and not a party to the within action, that I served the Minutes dated February 22, 2021 attached
hereto on all interested parties and any respective counsel of record in the within action by depositing true copies thereof,
enclosed in a sealed envelope(s) with postage fully prepaid and placed for collection and mailing on this date, following
standard Court practices, in the United States mail at Bakersfield California addressed as indicated on the attached
mailing list.
Date of Mailing: February 22, 2021
Place of Mailing: Bakersfield, CA
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.
Tamarah Harber-Pickens
CLERK OF THE SUPERIOR COURT
Date: February 22, 2021
By: Linda Hall
Linda Hall, Deputy Clerk
Signed: 2/22/2021 11:23 AM
Certificate of Mailing
Page 4 of 5
E.H. VS KERN HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT
BCV-19-101099
MAILING LIST
DANAY GONZALEZ NAZLI ALIMI
RODRIGUEZ & ASSOCIATES 515 S FIGUEROA STREET SUITE 1100
1128 TRUXTUN AVE LOS ANGELES CA 90071
BAKERSFIELD CA 93301 nalimi@mccuneharber.com
danay@rodriguezlaw.net
Certificate of Mailing
Page 5 of 5
Preview
Superior Court of California County of Kern Bakersfield Department 17 Date: 02/22/2021 Time: 8:30 AM - 12:00 PM BCV-19-101099 E.H. VS KERN HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT Courtroom Staff Honorable: Thomas S. Clark Clerk: Linda K. Hall Court reporter: . None Bailiff: Deputy Sheriff Interpreter: Language of: Court Call NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: MOTION TO COMPEL Hearing Start Time: 8:40 AM The above entitled cause came on regularly on this date and time with parties and/or counsel appearing as reflected. No appearance by counsel for Plaintiff. Counsel Nazli Alimi appeared via court call on behalf of Defendant(s). Submitted on the pleadings. The Court makes the following findings and orders: Plaintiff seeks an order compelling Defendant Leo Holland to provide further responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, no. 4.1, and Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, nos. 1-6, 8, 9, 14-18, 22-53, and 58-60[ ]. With respect to Form Interrogatory no. 4.1 and Requests for Production nos. 1-6, 8, 9, 14-18, 22, 58-60, Defendant Holland already provided further responses on December 28, 2020, although the verification for such further responses remained outstanding at the time this motion was filed and Plaintiff seeks an order compelling such verification. The motion is granted with respect to Form Interrogatory no. 4.1 and Requests for Production nos. 1- 6, 8, 9, 14-18, 22, 58-60 only in that Defendant is ordered to provide such verification by 03/17/2021. If a verification has been provided prior to this hearing, the motion is denied as moot at this time. Once the verification has been provided, should Plaintiff still deem the further responses to be deficient, Plaintiff remains free to file another motion to compel if further good faith meet and confer efforts are unsuccessful. In addition, with respect to Requests for Production nos. 58-60, Defendant's initial responses indicated that responsive documents would be provided. To the extent such documents have not yet been provided, Defendant MINUTES Page 1 of 5 E.H. VS KERN HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT BCV-19-101099 is ordered to make such production by [insert date]. Privilege objections are preserved and to the extent any documents are withheld from production based on privilege grounds, Defendant shall serve a privilege log concurrently with the production. Regarding Requests for Production nos. 23-53, these requests seek educational and disciplinary records of the students, other than Plaintiff, that were allegedly involved in the fight that gave rise to this lawsuit. The information sought is directly relevant to this case. Clear admissibility at trial is not the threshold for discovery. Unlike the requests discussed above, Defendant Holland has provided no further responses to these requests to date. Defendant's objections included privacy, the California Education Code and the federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA). At deposition Defendant Leo Holland testified that prior to the deposition and in preparation for the deposition he reviewed incident reports regarding Esben Hernandez and stated that what he reviewed was relative to a fight that occurred with Esben in 2017 and 2018. Mr. Holland testified that he also reviewed disciplinary records to prepare for the deposition, specifically, the disciplinary records with regards to the battery involving Esben in 2015 and also the fight involving Esben in 2017 as well as some of the disciplinary records of the students involved in the 2018 battery. Mr. Holland went on to testify that he could not recall any disciplinary issues with regard to any of the students involved. In other words. While the word "refresh" was not specifically used in the questions by the deposing attorney, Mr. Holland admitted to reviewing records in preparation for his deposition and then testified as to his knowledge in the remainder of the deposition. The fact that Mr. Holland could not recall any disciplinary issues may mean that the records he reviewed did not reveal any disciplinary issues; Plaintiff's counsel is entitled to find out. Disclosure of the records reviewed appears appropriate not only pursuant to Evidence Code section 771, but also pursuant to the Discovery Act. Furthermore, both the Education Code and FERPA permit disclosure of education records pursuant to court order, as admitted by the opposition. Accordingly, the motion for further verified code-compliant responses to Requests for Production, Set One, nos. 23-53 is granted. Privilege objections are preserved and to the extent any responsive document is withheld from production on privilege grounds, a privilege log shall be produced. If after a diligent search and reasonable inquiry, Defendant is unable to produce responsive records for any reason, Defendant shall so state in a code-compliant verified further response in compliance with CCP section 2031.230. Defendant's further code compliant verified response shall be provided by 03/17/2021. Martinez motion Plaintiff seeks an order compelling Defendant Martinez to provide further verified responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, no. 4.1, and Requests for Production, Set One, nos. 1, 6, 17-37. MOOT It appears that Defendant Martinez already provided further responses, albeit unverified, to Form Interrogatory 4.1 and Requests for Production 1-6. Defense counsel's opposition represents that the missing verification for these further responses has now been provided. Accordingly, the motion is moot in this regard. If Plaintiff deems these further responses as remaining deficient, Plaintiff is free to file a motion to compel further, as counsel deems necessary and appropriate. With respect to Requests for Production nos. 17-37, these requests pertain to student educational and disciplinary records, similar to the requests posed to Mr. Holland discussed above. Plaintiff also deposed Mr. Martinez, but the deposition testimony quotes in the moving brief cites to Mr. Holland's testimony rather than Mr. Martinez's testimony. A review of the deposition excerpts of Mr. Martinez provided with the moving papers does not reveal any deposition testimony of Mr. Martinez regarding any review of documents in preparation for his deposition. Furthermore, the documents sought via Mr. Martinez appear to be similar to those sought via Mr. Holland. The motion as to Mr. Martinez is denied at this time, without prejudice to counsel being allowed to propound MINUTES Page 2 of 5 E.H. VS KERN HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT BCV-19-101099 additional discovery as necessary and appropriate. Clerk's minutes will be the order of the court. Copy of clerk's minutes emailed to all parties as stated on the attached declaration. Minute order notice. FUTURE HEARINGS: May 07, 2021 10:00 AM Mandatory Settlement Conference Schuett, Stephen D. Sheriff, Deputy Bakersfield Department 18 June 14, 2021 9:00 AM Jury Trial Clark, Thomas S. Bakersfield Department 17 Sheriff, Deputy MINUTES FINALIZED BY: LINDA HALL ON: FEBRUARY 22, 2021 MINUTES Page 3 of 5 E.H. VS KERN HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT BCV-19-101099 E.H. VS KERN HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT BCV-19-101099 CERTIFICATE OF MAILING AND/OR EMAIL********************* The undersigned, of said Kern County, certify: That I am a Deputy Clerk of the Superior Court of the State of California, in and for the County of Kern, that I am a citizen of the United States, over 18 years of age, I reside in or am employed in the County of Kern, and not a party to the within action, that I served the Minutes dated February 22, 2021 attached hereto on all interested parties and any respective counsel of record in the within action by depositing true copies thereof, enclosed in a sealed envelope(s) with postage fully prepaid and placed for collection and mailing on this date, following standard Court practices, in the United States mail at Bakersfield California addressed as indicated on the attached mailing list. Date of Mailing: February 22, 2021 Place of Mailing: Bakersfield, CA I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Tamarah Harber-Pickens CLERK OF THE SUPERIOR COURT Date: February 22, 2021 By: Linda Hall Linda Hall, Deputy Clerk Signed: 2/22/2021 11:23 AM Certificate of Mailing Page 4 of 5 E.H. VS KERN HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT BCV-19-101099 MAILING LIST DANAY GONZALEZ NAZLI ALIMI RODRIGUEZ & ASSOCIATES 515 S FIGUEROA STREET SUITE 1100 1128 TRUXTUN AVE LOS ANGELES CA 90071 BAKERSFIELD CA 93301 nalimi@mccuneharber.com danay@rodriguezlaw.net Certificate of Mailing Page 5 of 5