Application, Motion-Undefined in M, L vs MODESTO CITY SCHOOLS| Trellis.Law

On March 30, 2020 a Motion,Ex Parte was filed involving a dispute between M, L, and Aguilar, Irma, Lopez, Eliseo, Modesto City Schools, for Other Personal Injury: Unlimited in the District Court of Stanislaus County.

Preview
Electronically Filed
2/8/2021 10:03 AM
1
DANIEL RODRIGUEZ, ESQ., SBN 096625 Superior Court of California
County of Stanislaus
2 CHANTAL TRUJILLO, ESQ., SBN 289493
Clerk of the Court
DANAY GONZALEZ, ESQ., SBN 316755 By: Mouang Saechao, Deputy
3
RODRIGUEZ & ASSOCIATES
$60 PAID
4 A Professional Law Corporation $30 NOT PAID
5
1128 Truxtun Avenue
Bakersfield, CA 93301
6 Tel. No.: (661) 323-1400
7 Fax No.: (661) 323-0132
8
Attorneys for Plaintiff, L.M., a minor, by and through his GAL, JOSEPH F. ETIENNE
9

10
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF STANISLAUS
11
CIVIL DIVISION - UNLIMITED
12

13
L.M., a minor, by and through his Guardian ) CASE NO.: CV-20-001926-JDF
14
ad Litem, JOSEPH F. ETIENNE, ) Honorable John D. Freeland
)
15 ) Department 23
Plaintiff, )
16 )
vs. ) PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION
17 ) TO COMPEL FURTHER ANSWER(S)
)
18 MODESTO CITY SCHOOLS; VICE ) TO DEPOSITION QUESTION(S) BY
PRINICIPAL ELISEO LOPEZ; IRMA ) JAMES MENDONCA;
19
AGUILAR; and DOES 1 to 100, Inclusive, ) MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
)
20 ) AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF
Defendants. ) CHANTAL TRUJILLO
21 )
)
22 ) Date: March 2, 2021
) Time: 8:30 am
23 )
) Dept. 23
24 )
)
25 ) Complaint Filed: 3/3/2020
) Trial Date: 4/27/2021
26 )
27

PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER ANSWER(S) TO DEPOSITION QUESTION(S) BY JAMES MENDONCA;
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF CHANTAL TRUJILLO - 1
I

2
TO ALL PARTIES AI\D TO THEIR RESPECTIVE ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
J
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on March 2,2021 at 8:30 a.m. or as soon thereafter as
4
the matter may be heard in Department23 of the above-entitled court, Plaintiff L.M., a
5
minor, by and through his Guardian ad Litem, Joseph Etienne, will move the court for an
6
order compelling witness James Mendonca, to answer question(s) that the witness was
7
instructed not to answer during his deposition that occurred on January 20,2021.
8
This motion will be, and is hereby, made pursuant to C.C.P. S 2025.450. This motion
9
is further based upon this notice, the attached Memorandum of Points and Authorities, the
l0 Declaration of Chantal Trujillo, ffid separate statement filed herewith; upon the records and
ll files in this action; and upon such further evidence and argument as may be presented prior
t2
to or at the time of hearing on the motion.
13

l5 DATED: February 3,2021 RODRIGUEZ & ASSOCIATES
t6

t9 CHANTAL A. TRUJILLO, ESQ.
20
Attorneys for Plaintiff L.M.
2t

PLATNTIFF'S NOTICE OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTTIERANSWER(S) TO DEPOSITION QUESTION(S) BY JAMES MENDONCA;
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF CHANTAL TRUJILLO -2
1

2 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
3
I. INTRODUCTION AND RELEVANT DISCOVERY BACKGROUND.
4
On November 28, 2018, Plaintiff L.M. was taken to the hospital because two older
5
student(s), who are identified as student A.E. and student A.B., attacked, molested,
6
offensively and inappropriately touched, sodomized, and threatened Plaintiff L.M. on
7
multiple occasions while attending Defendant Modesto City School’s school, Burbank
8
Elementary.
9

10
About a month before this hospital visit, Plaintiff and his mom reported to a

11
Defendant MCS’ administrator that two older boys were touching Plaintiff on his “private

12 part” and threatening Plaintiff. For whatever reason, this Defendant MCS administrator
13 chose not to inform law enforcement or child protective services.
14 Then about a month after Plaintiff and his mom’s report to the school, on or
15 about November 28, 2018, the two older boys, student A.E. and A.B. attacked Plaintiff
16 L.M. again in the boys’ bathroom at school. This time, the attack was more violent, and it
17 escalated to the two boys penetrating Plaintiff L.M.
18 After finding out what happened, Plaintiff L.M.’s mom rushed her son to the
19
hospital. Modesto Police Department arrived at the hospital, and based on Plaintiff’s report,
20
an examination to confirm sexual abuse was performed. The examination confirmed
21
evidence of sexual abuse.
22
Defendant Modesto City Schools denies the above allegations, and contends that
23
they adequately supervised their students and campus, including the student bathrooms.
24
As a result, Plaintiff seeks information concerning Defendant MCS’ knowledge in
25
connection with their student, A.E.’s disciplinary history (one of the alleged student
26
perpetrators).
27

PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER ANSWER(S) TO DEPOSITION QUESTION(S) BY JAMES MENDONCA;
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF CHANTAL TRUJILLO - 3
1
More specifically, during the deposition of the school’s principal, Mr. Mendonca, he
2
testified that he knew who student A.E. was, and confirmed that he was aware of prior
3
discipline issues concerning student A.E. This line of testimony is reflected below:
4
Q. Let me ask you:
5 Do you know, concerning student A.E., if he had any prior discipline issues
6
before November 28th, 2018?
A. Yes.
7
Q. And when you say "Yes," do you -- did he have prior discipline issues --
8 A. Yes.
Q. -- to your knowledge?
9
A. Yes.
10 Q. Okay. What was the scope of those discipline issues concerning student
11
A.E.?

12 MS. MORAN: Chantal, I'm going to object to
13 the extent that it calls for information in violation
of the Ed Code. I know we have a motion that was made
14
to release the names of these students, but we haven't
15 had any court order to release pupil records related to
16
any of the students.

17 See Trujillo Decl. para. 2; Exh. A.
18
Plaintiff requests the assistance from the Court to obtain the necessary court order so
19
the witness can answer the question posed and allow for follow up questions under this line
20
of questioning.
21

22
II. PURSUANT TO EDUCATION CODE §44807 AND CLEARLY

23
ESTABLISHED CASE LAW DEFENDANT MODESTO CITY SCHOOLS

24
HAS AN AFFIRMATIVE DUTY TO MONITOR AND SUPERVISE THEIR

25
STUDENTS.

26
California law requires its students K-12 to attend school. Because school attendance

27
is mandatory, school districts have a higher duty towards its students. “A special

28 relationship is formed between a school district and its students resulting in the imposition
of an affirmative duty on the school district to take all reasonable steps to protect its

PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER ANSWER(S) TO DEPOSITION QUESTION(S) BY JAMES MENDONCA;
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF CHANTAL TRUJILLO - 4
1
students; this affirmative duty arises, in part, based on the compulsory nature of
2
education. Because of this special relationship district had a heightened duty to make
3
the school safe.” See M.W. v. Panama Buena Vista Union School Dist., 110 Cal. App. 4th
4
508 (5th Dist. 2003), review denied, (Oct. 1, 2003).
5
Defendant MCS has a special relationship with its students requiring the school
6
district to take all reasonable steps to protect its students. This includes affirmative
7
duties to monitor and supervise. For instance, California law has long imposed on
8
school authorities’ duties to monitor and supervise at all times the conduct of the children
9

10
on the school grounds and to enforce those rules and regulations necessary to their

11
protection. California Education Code § 44807; 5 CCR § 5552.

12 In addition to the above, case law expressly holds: When a school district is aware
13 that a particular student has been the subject of reports by staff and students, but
14 does not supervise this student, it creates a foreseeable risk of harm. This kind of
15 awareness creates a duty of care towards its remaining students because it is then
16 foreseeable that the student poses a danger towards other students. See M.W. v. Panama
17 Buena Vista Union School Dist., 110 Cal. App. 4th 508 (5th Dist. 2003), review denied,
18 (Oct. 1, 2003).
19
Because Plaintiff was a student of the district, Defendant had a special relationship
20
that imposed an affirmative duty on them to take reasonable steps to supervise both
21
Plaintiff and the other student perpetrators. This included taking steps to protect Plaintiff
22
from reasonably foreseeable risks of harm and to abuse from other students.
23

24
III. CASE LAW HAS DETEREMINED THAT A SPECIFIC THREAT OF HARM
25
IS NOT NECESSARY TO ESTABLISH FORESEEABILITY OF HARM BY A
26
SCHOOL DISTRICT.
27

28
In the case of M.W. v. Panama Buena Vista Union School Dist. (2003) 110
Cal.App.4th 508, 518-519, the court determined a school district owed a duty where a

PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER ANSWER(S) TO DEPOSITION QUESTION(S) BY JAMES MENDONCA;
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF CHANTAL TRUJILLO - 5
1
student with a history of violent and sexual tendencies raped another student in the
2
bathroom in the morning before the school day began. Finding that such evidence
3
supported the jury’s verdict that the district was negligent in its duty to supervise
4
the students within its care and protect them from foreseeable harm, the Court explained
5
that liability is not dependent on the exact injury which occurred to have been
6
foreseeable. (M.W., supra, 110 Cal.App.4th at 518-519.)
7
“It is not necessary to prove that the very injury which occurred must have been
8
foreseeable by the school authorities.... Their negligence is established if a reasonably
9

10
prudent person would foresee that injuries of the same general type would be likely to

11
happen in the absence of [adequate] safeguards.” (Ibid.) “The fact that a particular act

12 of sodomy in a school bathroom may have been unforeseeable does not automatically
13 exonerate the District from the consequences of allowing students, unrestricted access to
14 the campus prior to the start of school with wholly inadequate supervision. Such conduct
15 created a foreseeable risk of a particular type of harm—an assault on a special education
16 student. Not only was such an assault reasonably foreseeable, it was virtually
17 inevitable under the circumstances present on this campus.” (Id. at p. 521 (emphasis
18 added).)
19
Similarly and recently, the California Supreme Court determined in Regents of
20
University of California v. Superior Court (2018) 4 Cal.5th 607, 630 that for purposes of
21
determining the existence of a duty, “the question is whether a reasonable university could
22
foresee that its negligent failure to control a potentially violent student ... could result in
23
harm to ... students,” adding: “Whether a university was, or should have been, on notice
24
that a particular student posed a foreseeable risk of violence is a case-specific question, to
25
be examined in light of all the surrounding circumstances. Any prior threats or acts of
26
violence by the student would be relevant, particularly if targeted at an identifiable
27

28
victim. Other relevant facts could include the opinions of examining mental health
professionals, or observations of students, faculty, family members, and others in the

PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER ANSWER(S) TO DEPOSITION QUESTION(S) BY JAMES MENDONCA;
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF CHANTAL TRUJILLO - 6
1
university community. Such case-specific foreseeability questions are relevant in
2
determining the applicable standard of care or breach in a particular case. They do not,
3
however, inform our threshold determination that a duty exists.” Regents, supra, 4 Cal.5th
4
at pp. 629-630, 230 Cal.Rptr.3d 415, 413 P.3d 656.
5
When remanded back to the Court of Appeal, the court clarified, “ although the
6
[California Supreme] Court identified any “prior threats ... by [the perpetrator], particularly
7
if targeted at an identifiable victim” (ibid.), as one factor the jury may consider when
8
assessing foreseeability, Regents contains no language suggesting that foreseeability is
9

10
dependent on the existence of an actual threat of harm made against an identifiable

11
victim. Regents of University of California v. Superior Court (2018) 29 Cal.App.5th 890,

12 907.
13 In this matter, evidence of student perpetrator A.E.’s conduct prior to the
14 November 28, 2018 attack that Defendants were aware about, or could have been
15 aware about, is directly relevant in this matter to the issue of notice by Defendants
16 and their failure to respond to this conduct for the purpose of protecting its students,
17 including Plaintiff L.M.
18

19
IV. BECAUSE THERE IS A CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANT MCS
20
FOR ITS NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION OF ITS STUDENTS, THE
21
INFORMATION SOUGHT BY PLAINTIFF OF STUDENT A.E.’s
22
DISCIPLINE HISTORY IS DIRECTLY RELEVANT TO THE ISSUES
23
OF FORESEEABILITY OF HARM, NOTICE AND STANDARD OF CARE.
24

25
The information requested is discoverable and well within the liberal standard of
26
discovery in California. For instance, California Code of Civil Procedure section
27
2016 provides in relevant part:
28
“Any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged,

PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER ANSWER(S) TO DEPOSITION QUESTION(S) BY JAMES MENDONCA;
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF CHANTAL TRUJILLO - 7
1
that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action or the
2 determination of any motion made in that action, if the matter either is itself
admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery
3
of admissible evidence.”
4

5
In the present case, the requests at issue are directly related to the causes of

6
action of negligence. For instance, the responsive documents will shed light on the issue
7 of notice and standard of care. As a result, this information is essential to the preparation
8 for the prosecution of Plaintiff’s case.
9

10
V. THE NEED FOR DISCOVERY OUTWEIGHS ANY PRIVACY OBJECTION

11
BECAUSE PLAINTIFF IS WILLING TO STIPULATE TO A PROTECTIVE

12 ORDER.
13
While the privacy rights of individuals, such as students, are always an interest to
14
maintain, they are not without exception. For instance, the California Supreme Court
15

16
has stated that such privacy interests are not “absolute; they must be balanced against other

17
important interests.” See Hill v. NCAA (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1, 37. Where there is a
18 substantial need for discovery of information and plaintiff has taken all steps to
19 minimize the intrusion on privacy interests, privacy concerns are outweighed and the
20 information sought may be disclosed. Id. at 38. Even very personal and confidential
21 matters may have to be disclosed “if essential to a fair determination of the lawsuit.” See
22 Morales v. Superior Court (1979) 99 Cal.App.3d 283, 288.
23 For example, a well-recognized significant interest against which the right to privacy
24
may be balanced is the “important state interest of facilitating the ascertainment of truth in
25
connection with legal proceedings,” this includes pre-trial discovery. See Britt v. Superior
26
Court (1978) 20 Cal.3d 844, 857. Here, plaintiff has taken all steps to minimize the
27
intrusion on the individuals’ privacy interests. For instance, plaintiff is willing to enter
28

PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER ANSWER(S) TO DEPOSITION QUESTION(S) BY JAMES MENDONCA;
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF CHANTAL TRUJILLO - 8
1
into a protective order, ensuring that the deposition transcripts are not disseminated
2
beyond this litigation. (Trujillo Decl., para. 5).
3
Through this protective order, the parties and this Court may protect the privacy rights
4
of student(s), whose discipline history have become relevant in this action. Given
5
Plaintiff’s willingness to enter into a protective order Plaintiff’s need for this information
6
outweighs the alleged assailant’s privacy right of student discipline history.
7

8
VI. THE COURT HAS THE POWER TO ORDER THE TESTIMONY PURSUANT
9
CALIFORNIA EDUCATION CODE SECTION §49077, AND FERPA 34 C.F.R.
10
§99.31.
11

12 Plaintiff requests the assistance of the Court to obtain complete unredacted responsive
13
documents. On August 25, 2020, Defendant served responses refusing to produce any
14
responsive documents claiming a student privacy rights. However, under California
15
Education Code Section 49077, which provides in relevant part:
16
“Information concerning a student shall be furnished in compliance with a court
17
order or a lawfully issued subpoena.”
18
See Cal. Educ. Code § 49077. (emphasis added).
19
Again, this option is further reinforced by FERPA 34 C.F.R. § 99.31 as it provides:
20

21
§ 99.31 Under what conditions is prior consent not required to
22 disclose information?
23
(a) An educational agency or institution may disclose personally identifiable
24
information from an education record of a student without the consent required
25 by § 99.30 if the disclosure meets one or more of the following conditions:
(9)(i) The disclosure is to comply with a judicial order or lawfully issued
26
subpoena.
27

28
34 C.F.R. § 99.31.

PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER ANSWER(S) TO DEPOSITION QUESTION(S) BY JAMES MENDONCA;
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF CHANTAL TRUJILLO - 9
I With respect to the information sought here, Plaintiff is only asking for discipline
2
information concerning student perpetrator, A.E., who is one of the subiect students of this
3
lawsuit. As a result, Plaintiffs request is limited to the least intrusive means possible.
4
However, Defendants assert that they are forbidden to provide said information absent a
5
judicial order.
6
Because of this, Plaintiff requests the assistance from the Court to obtain the necessary
7
court order so the witness can answer the question posed and allow for follow up questions
8

under this line of questioning.
9

l0
VII. CONCLUSION.
il
t2 For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff requests the assistance from the Court to obtain the

l3 necessary court order so the wifress can answer the question posed and allow for follow up
t4 questions under this line of questioning.
l5

l6
Dated: February 3,2021 RODRIGAEZ & ASSOCIATES

l9
Chantal Trujillo, Esq.
20 Attorney for Plaintiff L.M.
2t

PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER ANSWER(S) TO DEPOSITION QUESTION(S) BY JAMES MENDONCA;
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF CHANTAL TRUJILLO. IO
1
DECLARATION OF CHANTAL TRUJILLO
2
I, Chantal Trujillo, hereby declare:
3

4 1. I am an attorney duly licensed to practice law before all the Courts of the State of
5 California, and I am a Partner of the law firm Rodriguez & Associates, attorneys
6 of record herein for Plaintiff L.M.
7
2. During the deposition of the school’s principal, Mr. Mendonca, he testified that
8
he knew who student A.E. was, and confirmed that he was aware of prior
9
discipline issues concerning student A.E. This line of testimony is reflected
10
below:
11
Q. Let me ask you:
12 Do you know, concerning student A.E., if he had any prior discipline issues
13 before November 28th, 2018?
A. Yes.
14
Q. And when you say "Yes," do you -- did he have prior discipline issues --
15 A. Yes.
16
Q. -- to your knowledge?
A. Yes.
17 Q. Okay. What was the scope of those discipline issues concerning student
18 A.E.?
19
MS. MORAN: Chantal, I'm going to object to
20 the extent that it calls for information in violation
of the Ed Code. I know we have a motion that was made
21
to release the names of these students, but we haven't
22 had any court order to release pupil records related to
23
any of the students.
24
Attached hereto as Exhibit A are true and correct copies of excerpts of the transcript of the
25
January 20, 2021 deposition of Principal James Mendonca.
26

28
3. The deposition of the witness, James Mendonca, took place on January 20, 2021.
While conducting the deposition of Mr. Mendonca, Plaintiff’s counsel asked the

PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER ANSWER(S) TO DEPOSITION QUESTION(S) BY JAMES MENDONCA;
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF CHANTAL TRUJILLO - 11
I
witness questions establishing that the witness had knowledge of one of the
2
student perpetrators prior discipline history. This student being, A.E. However,
3
due to Education Code limitations, a court order is necessary to obtain the
4
substance of the discipline history that the deponent had knowledge of. As such,
5
Plaintiff s counsel and Defense counsel met and confened off the record as to this
6
issue, and then returned to the deposition and placed their efforts on the record.
7
4. The question asked is reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible
8

evidence. The question was not for any improper pufpose, such as to harass the
9

l0
witress or his attorney, to cause unnecessary delay or to result in needless

ll increase in the cost of litigation. As set forth in plaintifPs separate statement, the

t2 answer is relevant to the issues in this litigation and discoverable.
l3 5. Plaintiff is willing to enter into a protective order, ensuring that the deposition
t4 transcript where the student's discipline history is described is not disseminated
l5 beyond this litigation.
t6 6. Notice of this motion was given to all parties and the deponent in accordance
t7 with C.C.P. $ 202s.a80(c).
l8

l9 I declare under penalty of perjury pursuant to the laws of the State of California that the
20 foregoing is true and correct.
2l
Executed on February 3,2021 at Bakersfield, California.
22

24
Chantal Trujillo
25

PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER ANSWER(S) TO DEPOSITION QUESTION(S) BY JAMES MENDONCA;
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF CHANTAL TRUJILLO - 12
1
PROOF OF SERVICE
2

3
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF KERN
4
I am employed in the County of Kern, State of California. I am over the age of 18
5 and not a party to the within action; my business address is 1128 Truxtun Avenue,
Bakersfield, California 93301.
6

7 On February 3, 2021, I served the foregoing document described as follows:
8
PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER ANSWER(S) TO
DEPOSITION QUESTION(S) BY JAMES MENDONCA; MEMORANDUM OF
9 POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF CHANTAL TRUJILLO
10
X by placing the true copies thereof by placing the original
11

12 addressed as follows:
13
Kelly Moran, Esq. Attorneys for Defendants, MODESTO
14 Kelley.Moran@mccormickbarstow.com CITY SCHOOLS, VICE PRINCIPAL
15
Sherrea.Lee@mccormickbarstow.com ELISEO LOPEZ, IRMA AGUILAR
McCORMICK BARSTOW, LLP
16 1125 I Street, Suite 1
17 Modesto, CA 95354
Tel. No.: (209) 524-1100
18
Fax No.: (209) 524-1188
19
ELECTRONICALLY SERVED-In accordance with the Governor’s stay at home
20
order and Emergency Rule 12. I caused the documents to be sent/electronically served to
21 the persons at the e-mail addresses listed above.
22
X BY EMAIL OR ELECTRONIC FILING/SERVICE - Based upon a court order,
23 local Rules of Court, or an agreement of the parties to accept service by e-mail or electronic
24 transmission, I caused the documents to be sent/electronically served to the persons at the e-
mail addresses listed above. (C.C.P. § 1010.6 and CRC § 2.260)
25

26 BY MAIL - I enclosed such document in a sealed envelope and caused such envelope
27
to be deposited in the mail at Bakersfield, California. The envelope was mailed with postage
thereon fully prepaid. I am “readily familiar” with this firm’s practice of collection and
28 processing of correspondence for mailing. It is deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on that
same day in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of party, service is

PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER ANSWER(S) TO DEPOSITION QUESTION(S) BY JAMES MENDONCA;
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF CHANTAL TRUJILLO - 13
I presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day
2 date of deposit for mailing affidavit.
J
BY OVERNIGHT DELMRY - I enclosed such document in a sealed envelope
4 caused it to be deposited in a box or other facility regularly maintained by the express servi
5
carrier, or delivered to an authorized courier or driver authorized by the express servi
carrier to receive documents, in an envelope or package designated by the express servi
6
carrier with delivery fees paid or provided for, addressed to the person on whom it is to
7 served, at the office address as last given by that person.

8
BY PERSONAL SERVICE - I enclosed such document in a sealed envelope and
9 caused it to be delivered by hand to the individual(s)/office(s) of the addressee(s).
l0
Executed on February 3, 2021, at Bakersfield, Califomia.
ll
t2 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
above is true and correct.
l3

l5
STEPHANIELOPEZ
t6

PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER ANSWER(S) TO DEPOSITION QUESTION(S) BY JAMES MENDONCA;
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF CHANTAL TRUJILLO . 14

Case Info

Judge

Freeland, John D Track Judge’s New Case

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

February 08, 2021

Case Filing Date

March 30, 2020

County

Parties

AGUILAR, IRMA Defendant
MORAN, KELLEY N, Esq. Attorney for the Defendant
OLIVER, SUSAN L, Esq. Attorney for the Defendant
TRUJILLO, CHANTAL A, Esq. Attorneys for Plaintiffs
ETIENNE, JOSEPH F Guardian Ad Litem Plaintiff
LOPEZ, ELISEO Defendant
M, L Minor Plaintiff
MODESTO CITY SCHOOLS Defendant
Diana Gonzalez Attorney
Mary Varni Attorneys for Defendants
Danay Gonzalez Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Emily Berman Attorneys for Defendants
Daniel Rodriguez Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Kelly Moran Attorneys for Defendants
Susan Lopez-Giss Attorneys for Defendants
Blaine Mustoe Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Cornelius Callahan Attorney

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

Motion,Ex Parte: M, L vs MODESTO CITY SCHOOLS

Preview

Related Topics

Case Info

Parties