Preview
Law Offices of
MATHENY SEARS LINKERT 4 JAIME, LLP
MATTHEW C. JAIME (SBN 140340)
ROBERT W. SWEETIN (SBN 297130) ELECTRONICALLY FILED
3638 American River Drive Superior Court of California
Sacramento, California 95864 County of Santa Cruz
Telephone: (916) 978-3434 7/30/2020 6:12 PM
Facsimile: (916) 978-3430 Alex Calvo, Clerk
m'aime mathen sears.com By: Araceli Lopez, Deputy
rsweetin mathen sears.com
Attorneys for Defendant, CHRISTOPHER
GUEVARA
(See Next Page For Additional Counsel)
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
10 COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ
LLI
K
~'4 ill) g
lA
Og ™g&
KZ 12 DAPHNE BELETSIS, individually, and as Case No. 19CV03287
Administrator of the Estate of
O ++w ALEXANDER BELETSIS, and YVONNE THE STUDENT DEFENDANTS'OINT
~~Zz&
~ 13
p 0&0 RAINEY, surviving parent of SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT
y V)KP
Q LJJ~ 14 ALEXANDER BELETSIS, deceased, OF MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA TO
UC SANTA CRUZ
rn "$ 15
Plaintiffs, Date: August 31, 2020
N
LLI
Z 16 Time: 8:30 a.m.
I- Dept: 10
17 Judge: Honorable John Gallagher
THETA CHI FRATERNITY, INC., a New
York corporation, individually, as a
member of and t/a the Theta Iota Chapter,
19 et al.
Defendants. Complaint filed: 10/31/19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
THE STUDENT DEFENDANTS'OINT SEPARA TE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF
MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA TO UC SANTA CRUZ
ADDITIONAL COUNSEL
Julie Azevedo (SBN 151618)
LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH, LLP
2185 North California Blvd., Suite 300
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Telephone: (925) 357-3456
Julie.Azevedo lewisbrisbois.com
Attorneys for Defendant JORDAN KEIICHI TAKAYAMA
Mary Childs (SBN 134274)
YOKA & SMITH, LLP
445 South Figueroa Street, 38th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 427-2300
Q. Mchilds okasmith.com
10
LU Attorneys for Defendants BOBBY KARKI,
X EMMANUEL THOMAS, DEREK KING and
col
w +N JOHN DYLAN LEITCH
+o
o ~~z 12
Patrick Ball (SBN 249844)
O ++~
Zz& 13
MES SNER REEVES LLP
~
~~&0 610 Newport Center Drive Suite 420
0 ~
th KP Newport Beach, CA 92660
I M~z 14
Telephone: (949) 612-9128
ddbll
15
N Attorneys for MOISES GARCIA
Z 16
I
Derek H. Lim (SBN 209496)
17
DEMLER, ARMSTRONG & ROWLAND, LLP
18
1350 Treat Blvd, Suite 400
Walnut Creek, CA 94597
19 Telephone: (415) 949-1900
20
l~dl
Attorneys for Defendant BRADLEY VISACKI
21
Ray Tamaddon (SBN 144494)
22 HINSHAW &, CULBERTSON, LLP
11601 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 800
23 Los Angeles, CA 90025
Telephone: (310) 909-800
24 rtamaddon inshawlaw.com
25 Attorneys for Defendant ZACHARY NASH DAVIS
26
27
28
THE STUDENT DEFENDANTS'OINT SEPARA TE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF
MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA TO UC SANTA CRUZ
Defendants Emmanuel Thomas, Bobby Karki, John Dylan Leitch, Jordan Keiichi
Takayama, Brad Visacki, Zachary Davis, Zachary Davis, Moises Garcia and Christopher Guevara
(" Student Defendants" ) jointly submit, under California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1345, the following
separate statement in support of their joint Motion to Quash the subpoena served on the University
of California, Santa Cruz, as follows:
REQUEST NO. ONE
All documents concerning any complaints or reports received by the University of
California, Santa Cruz ("UCSC") related to allegations of violations of law and/or UCSC's Student
Policies and Regulations Handbook by the Theta Iota Chapter of Theta Chi Fraternity (hereinafter,
O.
LLI
10 "Chapter" ), from January 1,2013 to the present.
8 ~a)CO
OBJECTIONS TO REQUEST NO. ONK -REASONS WHY QUASHING THK REQUEST
EL'
y5
0 gz
+~K 12 IS NECESSARY
gl)O
o&Z
m
~- 13 Under the federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) 20 U.S.C. $ 1232g,
f ~&00
V)P&
~ 14 the records sought seek to invade the Student Defendants'onstitutional right to privacy. FERPA
w '4~UJ
QJ4~
rh gy 15 is a federal law that is administered by the Family Policy Compliance Office in the United States
W Pi)o
gJ M
K
I- 16 Department of Education (20 U.S.C. $ 1232g; 34 CFR Part 99) and applies to all educational
17 agencies and institutions that receive funding under any program administered by the department.
18 FERPA generally prohibits the improper disclosure of personally identifiable information derived
19 from education records. Further, California State Law follows the protections provided under
20 FERPA. Request No. One specifically and directly seeks production of records of student conduct
21 investigations. Thus, under FERPA and corresponding California Law, the request seeks education
22 records protected from disclosure by FERPA.
23 The request is also overbroad, and seeks documents which are irrelevant, not likely to lead
24 to the discovery
Defendants'ightof admissible evidence and is an attempted invasion of the Student
25 to privacy. (Cal. Const., Art 1; Mailhoit v. Home Depot U.S.A. (C.D. Cal. 2012) 285 F.R.D.
26 566, 570; Code of Civ. Proc. $ 2017.010; CBS v. Sup. Ct., (1968) 263 Cal. App. 2d 12; Britt v. Sup
27 Ct. (1978) 20 Cal. 3d. 844.) The inclusive listof documents is also likely to include personal
28 information about the Student Defendants, which is protected by their privacy rights and FERPA.
1
THE STUDENT DEFENDANTS 'OINT SEPARA TE STA TEMENT IN SUPPORT OF
MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA TO UC SANTA CRUZ
Request No. One does not limit the documents other than to January 1, 2013, to present. There is
no indication the request is not seeking private information of the Student Defendants, including,
at a minimum, private UCSC records or transcripts/grades of the Student Defendants, financial
information, medical information. Furthermore, the incident from which this case originates
occurred June 2, 2018, more than five years after their time limitation start date of January 1, 2013.
This includes time before which the Student Defendants attended UCSC and/or became involved
with Theta Chi. The request also seeks documents about the Theta Iota Chapter of Theta Chi
Fraternity, and its members and pledges, without sufficient limitation. Further, the request also
seeks private and confidential information relating to non-party third parties without limitation or
0.
Ill
10 protection. Thus, the request could lead to the production of numerous documents that are
2
»S
Cb
irrelevant, private, or both. The request is unreasonably overbroad.
O
u-I-gz 12 REQUEST NO. TWO
rn m)&
o ~&- All documents and communications investigations UCSC into
— Zz& 13 concerning any by the
gg&o
lL UJz 14 allegations of violations of UCSC's Student Policies and Regulations Handbook by the Chapter,
c( 2QJ
C~
IJJ
f/j ca g 15 &om January 1, 2013 to the present.
W Pvjo
Z V)
Z
I
16 OBJECTIONS TO REQUEST NO. TWO -REASONS WHY QUASHING THE REQUEST
17 IS NECESSARY
18 Under the federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) 20 U.S.C. $ 1232g,
19 the records sought seek to invade the Student Defendants'onstitutional right to privacy. FERPA
20 is a federal law that is administered by the Family Policy Compliance Office in the United States
21 Department of Education (20 U.S.C. $ 1232g; 34 CFR Part 99) and applies to all educational
22 agencies and institutions that receive funding under any program administered by the department.
23 FERPA generally prohibits the improper disclosure of personally identifiable information derived
24 from education records. Further, California State Law follows the protections provided under
25 FERPA. Request No. Two specifically and directly seeks production of records of student conduct
26 investigations. Thus, under FERPA and corresponding California Law, the request seeks education
27 records protected from disclosure by FERPA.
The request is also overbroad, and seeks documents which are irrelevant, not likely to lead
2
THE STUDENT DEFENDANTS 'OINT SEPARA TE STA TEMENT IN SUPPORT OF
MOTION TO g UASH SUBPOENA TO UC SANTA CRUZ
to the discovery of admissible evidence
Defendants'ight and is an attempted invasion of the Student
to privacy. (Cal. Const., Art 1; Mailhoit v. Home Depot U.S.A. (C.D. Cal. 2012) 285 F.R.D.
566, 570; Code of Civ. Proc. $ 2017.010; CBS v. Sup. Ct., (1968) 263 Cal. App. 2d 12; Britt v. Sup
Ct. (1978) 20 Cal. 3d. 844.) The inclusive list of documents is also likely to include personal
information about the Student Defendants, which is protected by their privacy rights and FERPA.
Request No. Two does not limit the documents other than to January 1, 2013, to present. There is
no indication the request is not seeking private information of the Student Defendants, including,
at a minimum, private UCSC records or transcripts/grades of the Student Defendants, financial
information, medical information. Furthermore, the incident from which this case originates
CL
LLI
10 occurred June 2, 2018, more than five years aAer their time limitation start date of January 1, 2013.
This includes time before which the Student Defendants attended UCSC and/or became involved
u-
p gz
g~g
I 12 with Theta Chi. The request also seeks documents about the Theta Iota Chapter of Theta Chi
rn e)P
~0-'—
o— Z 2& 13 Fraternity, and its members and pledges, without sufficient limitation. Further, the request also
g J&O
p O
ELp
Luz 14 seeks private and confidential information relating to non-party third parties without limitation or
C~
LLI
Q) cog protection. the request could lead to the production of numerous documents that are
&go 15 Thus,
Z
Z
I- 16 irrelevant, private, or both. The request is unreasonably overbroad.
17 REQUEST NO. THREE
18 The "letter of potential action items" referenced in, and described as attached to, the email
19 sent by Tara Dunn, Director of Collegiate Services, Theta Chi Fraternity, Inc. (" Theta Chi
20 National" ), to Clifford Golz, Assistant Dean of Students at UCSC, on or about April 27, 2016, at
21 4:36 PM. A copy of the April 27, 2016, email from Ms. Dunn to Assistant Dean Golz is attached
22 hereto as Exhibit A. The phrase "letter of potential action items" in Exhibit A has been highlighted
23 by the counsel for Plaintiffs for ease of reference.
24 OBJECTIONS TO REQUEST NO. THREE -REASONS WHY QUASHING THK
25 REQUEST IS NECESSARY
26 Under the federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) 20 U.S.C. $ 1232g,
27 the records sought seek to invade the Student Defendants'onstitutional right to privacy. FERPA
28 is a federal law that is administered by the Family Policy Compliance Office in the United States
3
THE STUDENT DEFENDANTS 'OINT SEPARA TE STA TEMENT IN SUPPORT OF
MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA TO UC SANTA CRUZ
Department of Education (20 U.S.C. $ 1232g; 34 CFR Part 99) and applies to all educational
agencies and institutions that receive funding under any program administered by the department.
FERPA generally prohibits the improper disclosure of personally identifiable information derived
&om education records. Further, California State Law follows the protections provided under
FERPA. Request No. Three directly seeks records pertaining to a student conduct investigation
and is therefore an educational record afforded privacy protection under FERPA and corresponding
California Law. (Cal. Const., Art 1; Mailhoit v. Home Depot U.S.A. (C.D. Cal. 2012) 285 F.R.D.
566, 570; Code of Civ. Proc. ) 2017.010; CBS v. Sup. Ct. (1968) 263 Cal. App. 2d 12; Bvitt v. Sup
Ct. (1978) 20 Cal. 3d. 844.)
L,
UJ
10 Further, Request No. Three seeks private and confidential education records and
7 ~co
CD
information relating to non-party third parties without limitation or protection. Thus, the request
U-
0 I-gZ
g~ll 12 could lead to the production of numerous documents that are irrelevant, private, or both. The
~ ~+LL
0
— Z2& 13 request is unreasonably overbroad.
~~ 0&0
14 REQUEST NO. FOUR
C~
IJJ
Q) cog 15 All documents and communications concerning any investigation by the Chapter or Theta
+
Z c%0
gJ M
Z
I- 16 Chi National into allegations of violations of UCSC's Student Policies and Regulations Handbook
17 by the Chapter, from January 1,2013 to the present.
18 OBJECTIONS TO REQUEST NO. FOUR -REASONS WHY QUASHING THE
19 REQUEST IS NECESSARY
20 Under the federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) 20 U.S.C. $ 1232g,
21 the records sought seek to invade the Student Defendants'onstitutional right to privacy. FERPA
22 is a federal law that is administered by the Family Policy Compliance Office in the United States
23 Department of Education (20 U.S.C. $ 1232g; 34 CFR Part 99) and applies to all educational
24 agencies and institutions that receive funding under any program administered by the department.
25 FERPA generally prohibits the improper disclosure of personally identifiable information derived
26 from education records. Further, California State Law follows the protections provided under
27 FERPA. Request No. Four specifically and directly seeks production of records of student conduct
28 investigations that have been shared or have become part of UCSC's educational records. Thus,
4
THE STUDENT DEFENDANTS 'OINT SEPARA TE STA TEMENT IN SUPPORT OF
MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA TO UC SANTA CRUZ
under FERPA and corresponding California Law, the request seeks education records protected
from disclosure by FERPA.
The request is also overbroad, and seeks documents which are irrelevant, not likely to lead
to the discovery of admissible evidence and is an attempted invasion of the Student
Defendants'ight
to privacy. (Cal. Const., Art 1; Mailhoit v. Home Depot U.S.A. (C.D. Cal. 2012) 285 F.R.D.
566, 570; Code of Civ. Proc. $ 2017.010; CBS v. Sup. Ct., (1968) 263 Cal. App. 2d 12; Britt v. Sup
Ct. (1978) 20 Cal. 3d. 844.) The inclusive listof documents is also likely to include personal
information about the Student Defendants, which is protected by their privacy rights and FERPA.
Request No. Four does not limit the documents other than to January 1,2013, to present. There is
CL
LLI
10 no indication the request is not seeking private information of the Student Defendants, including,
CD
) Co
cn
at a minimum, private and confidential education records. Furthermore, the incident from which
Z 12 this case originates occurred June 2, 2018, more than five years after their time limitation start date
O +~lL
M LU)O
o— ~&-
Z2& 13 of January 1, 2013. This includes time before which the Student Defendants attended UCSC and/or
&~ o&o
lOPO
CUJ~ 14 became involved with Theta Chi. The request also seeks documents about the Theta Iota Chapter
LU &~
Q)
cog
&go 15 of Theta Chi Fraternity, and its members and pledges, without sufficient limitation. Further, the
Z M
QJ
zI- 16 request also seeks private and confidential information relating to non-party third parties without
17 limitation or protection. Thus, the request could lead to the production of numerous documents
18 that are irrelevant, private, or both. The request is unreasonably overbroad.
19 REQUEST NO. FIVE
20 All communications between UCSC personnel Clifford Golz, Katherine Canales, Lucy
21 Rojas, Brian Arao, Sayo Fujioka, Cory Fung, Francisco Galvan, Carmen Gutierrez, Arian
22 Mendiola, Garrett Naiman, and/or Jose Sanchez, on the one hand, and any representative or
23 employee of Theta Chi National, on the other hand, including but not limited to Tara Dunn, Jordan
24 McGee, or Rory Vanlanot, from January 1, 2013 to the present.
25 OBJECTIONS TO REQUEST NO. FIVE -REASONS WHY QUASHING THE REQUEST
26 IS NECESSARY
27 Under the federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) 20 U.S.C. $ 1232g,
-28 the records sought seek to invade the Student Defendants'onstitutional right to privacy. FERPA
5
THE STUDENT DEFENDANTS 'OINT SEPARA TE STA TEMENT IN SUPPORT OF
MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA TO UC SANTA CRUZ
is a federal law that is administered by the Family Policy Compliance Office in the United States
Department of Education (20 U.S.C. $ 1232g; 34 CFR Part 99) and applies to all educational
agencies and institutions that receive funding under any program administered by the department.
FERPA generally prohibits the improper disclosure of personally identifiable information derived
from education records. Further, California State Law follows the protections provided under
FERPA. Request No. Five seeks records related to student conduct investigations by implication.
The request is overbroad and thus would include educational records. (Cal. Const., Art 1;Mailhoi t
v.Home Depot U.S.A. (C.D. Cal. 2012) 285 F.R.D. 566, 570; Code of Civ. Proc. f 2017.010; CBS
v.Sup. Ct., (1968) 263 Cal. App. 2d 12; Britt v. Sup Ct. (1978) 20 Cal. 3d. 844.) The inclusive list
CL
UJ
10 of documents is also likely to include personal information about the Student Defendants, which is
K~I protected by their privacy rights and FERPA. Request No. Five does not limit the documents other
'+o&
u-
0 I-g2 12 than to January 1, 2013, to present. There is no indication the request is not seeking private
m u1)&
o— ~&5
z z&~ 13 information of the Student Defendants, including, at a minimum, private UCSC records or
g J&O
~ rn-"c
14 transcripts/grades of the Student Defendants, financial information, medical information or student
C~
IJJ
Q) aors 15 conduct investigation records.
+
2
CD~
M
X 16 Furthermore, the incident from which this case originates occurred June 2, 2018, more than
17 five years after their time limitation start date of January 1, 2013. This includes time before which
the Student Defendants attended UCSC and/or became involved with Theta Chi. The request also
19 seeks documents about the Theta Iota Chapter of Theta Chi Fraternity, and its members and
20 pledges, without sufficient limitation. Further, the request also seeks private and confidential
21 information relating to non-party third parties without limitation or protection. Thus, the request
22 could lead to the production of numerous documents that are irrelevant, private, or both. The
23 request is unreasonably overbroad.
24 REQUEST NO. SIX
25 All documents concerning any actual or potential suspension, sanction, probation,
26 revocation, ban on campus recruiting, expulsion, or any other disciplinary action taken by UCSC
27 against the Chapter related to allegations of violation of any provision of UCSC's Student Policies
28
THE STUDENT DEFENDANTS 'OINT SEPARA TE STA TEMENT IN SUPPORT OF
MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA TO UC SANTA CRUZ
and Regulations Handbook, violation of California law, or violation of any other rules or policies,
from January 1, 2013 to the present.
OBJECTIONS TO REQUEST NO. SIX -REASONS WHY QUASHING THE REQUEST
IS NECESSARY
Under the federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) 20 U.S.C. $ 1232g,
the records sought seek to invade the Student Defendants'onstitutional right to privacy. FERPA
is a federal law that is administered by the Family Policy Compliance Office in the United States
Department of Education (20 U.S.C. $ 1232g; 34 CFR Part 99) and applies to all educational
agencies and institutions that receive funding under any program administered by the department.
Q.
LLI
10 FERPA generally prohibits the improper disclosure of personally identifiable information derived
4~$
»N from education records. Further, California State Law follows the protections provided under
&
o I-gz 12 FERPA. Request No. Six specifically and directly seeks production of records of student conduct
m tu&o
p LL
— Zz& 13 investigations. Thus, under FERPA and corresponding California Law, the request seeks education
g J&O0
o v)-o
~
g u:5+
~gz 14 records protected from disclosure by FERPA.
UJ
thy'r)o 15 The request is also overbroad, and seeks documents which are irrelevant, not likely to lead
Z
z 16 to the discovery
Defendants'ight of admissible evidence and is an attempted invasion of the Student
17 to privacy. (Cal. Const., Art 1; Mailhoit v. Home Depot U.S.A. (C.D. Cal. 2012) 285 F.R.D.
18 566, 570; Code of Civ. Proc. $ 2017.010; CBS v. Sup. Ct., (1968) 263 Cal. App. 2d 12; Britt v. Sup
19 Ct. (1978) 20 Cal. 3d. 844.) The inclusive list of documents is also likely to include personal
20 information about the Student Defendants, which is protected by their privacy rights and FERPA.
21 Request No. Six does not limit the documents other than to January 1, 2013, to present. There is
22 no indication the request is not seeking private information of the Student Defendants, including,
23 at a minimum, private UCSC records or transcripts/grades of the Student Defendants, financial
24 information, medical information.
25 Furthermore, the incident from which this case originates occurred June 2, 2018, more than
26 five years after their time limitation start date of January 1, 2013. This includes time before which
27 the Student Defendants attended UCSC and/or became involved with Theta Chi. The request also
28 seeks documents about the Theta Iota Chapter of Theta Chi Fraternity, and its members and
7
THE STUDENT DEFENDANTS 'OINT SEPARA TE STA TEMENT IN SUPPORT OF
MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA TO UC SANTA CRUZ
pledges, without sufficient limitation. Further, the request also seeks private and confidential
information relating to non-party third parties without limitation or protection. Thus, the request
could lead to the production of numerous documents that are irrelevant, private, or both. The
request is unreasonably overbroad.
REQUEST NO. SEVEN
All documents concerning any alleged violations of UCSC's Student Policies and
Regulations Handbook or any other rules or policies, or violations of law, by the Chapter, from
January 1, 2013 to the present.
OBJECTIONS TO REQUEST NO. SEVEN -REASONS WHY QUASHING THE
0.
LLI
10 REQUEST IS NECESSARY
X
~)I LA Under the federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) 20 U.S.C. $ 1232g,
&
p I-gz
~ 12 the records sought seek to invade the Student Defendants'onstitutional right to privacy. FERPA
m gggp
o ~&-
Zz& 13 is a federal law that is administered by the Family Policy Compliance Office in the United States
~~
p 0&0
14 Department of Education (20 U.S.C. ( 1232g; 34 CFR Part 99) and applies to all educational
C~
IJJ
+ 15 agencies and institutions that receive funding under any program administered by the department.
2 Ãp
r
iu
I
16 FERPA generally prohibits the improper disclosure of personally identifiable information derived
17 from education records. Further, California State Law follows the protections provided under
FERPA. Request No. Seven specifically and directly seeks production of records of student
19 conduct investigations. Thus, under FERPA and corresponding California Law, the request seeks
20 education records protected from disclosure by FERPA.
21 The request is also overbroad, and seeks documents which are irrelevant, not likely to lead
22 to the discovery
Defendants'ightof admissible evidence and is an attempted invasion of the Student
23 to privacy. (Cal. Const., Art 1; Mailhoit v. Home Depot U.S.A. (C.D. Cal. 2012) 285 F.R.D.
24 566, 570; Code of Civ. Proc. $ 2017.010; CBS v. Sup. Ct., (1968) 263 Cal. App. 2d 12; Britt v. Sup
25 Ct. (1978) 20 Cal. 3d. 844.) The inclusive list of documents is also likely to include personal
26 information about the Student Defendants, which is protected by their privacy rights and FERPA.
27 Request No. Seven does not limit the documents other than to January 1, 2013, to present. There
28 is no indication the request is not seeking private information of the Student Defendants, including,
8
THE STUDENT DEFENDANTS 'OINT SEPARA TE STA TEMENT IN SUPPORT OF
MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA TO UC SANTA CRUZ
at a minimum, private UCSC records or transcripts/grades of the Student Defendants, financial
information, medical information.
Furthermore, the incident from which this case originates occurred June 2, 2018, more than
five years after their time limitation start date of January 1, 2013. This includes time before which
the Student Defendants attended UCSC and/or became involved with Theta Chi. The request also
seeks documents about the Theta Iota Chapter of Theta Chi Fraternity, and its members and
pledges, without sufficient limitation. Further, the request also seeks private and confidential
information relating to non-party third parties without limitation or protection. Thus, the request
could lead to the production of numerous documents that are irrelevant, private, or both. The
Q.
LLJ
10 request, and specifically the term "concerning" is treasonably overbroad.
2
REQUEST NO. EIGHT
EL
pj's ~
&
O
I-gz
+~K 12 All documents and communications concerning UCSC's recognition of or relationship with
m tu)o
~pLL
O the Chapter and/or Theta Chi National from January 1, 2013 to the present.
u +Z& 13
gg&V
a —
G
14 OBJECTIONS TO REQUEST NO. EIGHT -REASONS WHY QUASHING THE
C~
LLI
Mgg 15 REQUEST IS NECESSARY
~F)o
Z M
xI- 16 Under the federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) 20 U.S.C. $ 1232g,
K 17 the records sought seek to invade the Student Defendants'onstitutional right to privacy. FERPA
18 is a federal law that is administered by the Family Policy Compliance Office in the United States
19 Department of Education (20 U.S.C. f 1232g; 34 CFR Part 99) and applies to all educational
20 agencies and institutions that receive funding under any program administered by the department.
21 FERPA generally prohibits the improper disclosure of personally identifiable information derived
22 from education records. Further, California State Law follows the protections provided under
23 FERPA. Request No. Eight is so broadly written that it invokes documents that would "concern"
24 student conduct investigation and other educational records and therefore violates the Student
25 Defendants, and perhaps non-party students'ights to privacy.
26 The request is also overbroad, and seeks documents which are irrelevant, not likely to lead
27Defendants'8
to the discovery
right to privacy.
of admissible
(Cal.
evidence
Const;, Art 1;
and is
Mailhoit v.
an attempted invasion of the
Home Depot
9
U.S.A. (C.D.
Student
Cal. 2012) 285 F.R.D.
THE STUDENT DEFENDANTS'OINT SEPARATE STA TEMENT IN SUPPORT OF
MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA TO UC SANTA CRUZ
566, 570; Code of Civ. Proc. $ 2017.010; CBS v. Sup. Ct., (1968) 263 Cal. App. 2d 12; Britt v. Sup
Ct. (1978) 20 Cal. 3d. 844.) The inclusive list of documents is also likely to include personal
information about the Student Defendants, which is protected by their privacy rights and FERPA.
Request No. Eight does not limit the documents other than to January 1, 2013, to present. There is
no indication the request is not seeking private information of the Student Defendants, including,
at a minimum, private UCSC records or transcripts/grades of the Student Defendants, financial
information, medical information.
Furthermore, the incident from which this case originates occurred June 2, 2018, more than
five years after their time limitation start date of January 1, 2013. This includes time before which
IL
LLI
10 the Student Defendants attended UCSC and/or became involved with Theta Chi. The request also
~~e) ao
cn
seeks documents about the Theta Iota Chapter of Theta Chi Fraternity, and its members and
os'~2
O +~EL 12 pledges, without sufficient limitation. Further, the request also seeks private and confidential
~ indigo
~pU
— Zz& 13 information relating to non-party third parties without limitation or protection. Thus, the request
0z~ 0
&0
~ 0
~R.'p
y U'z could lead to the production of numerous documents that are irrelevant, private, or both. The
4~UJ
&~
IJJ
g) cog 15 request is unreasonably overbroad.
0
Z P) K
gJ
Z
I
16 REQUEST NO. NINE
17 All documents concerning communications between UCSC personnel Clifford
18 Golz,Katherine Canales, Lucy Rojas, Brian Arao, Sayo Fujioka, Cory Fung, Francisco Galvan,
19 Carmen Gutierrez, Arian Mendiola, Garrett Naiman, and/or Jose Sanchez, on the one hand, and
20 any law enforcement agency, on the other hand, concerning the Chapter &om January 1, 2013 to
21 the present.
22 OBJECTIONS TO REQUEST NO. NINE -REASONS WHY QUASHING THK REQUEST
23 IS NECESSARY
24 Under the federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) 20 U.S.C. )1232g,
25 the records sought seek to invade the Student Defendants'onstitutional right to privacy. FERPA
26 is a federal law that is administered by the Family Policy Compliance Office in the United States
27 Department of Education (20 U.S.C. $ 1232g; 34 CFR Part 99) and applies to all educational
agencies and institutions that receive funding under any program administered by the department.
10
THE STUDENT DEFENDANTS'OINT SEPARA TE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF
MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA TO UC SANTA CRUZ
FERPA generally prohibits the improper disclosure of personally identifiable information derived
from education records. Further, California State Law follows the protections provided under
FERPA. Request No. Nine is so broadly written is necessarily invokes production of education
records held by UCSC regarding the Student Defendants and non-party students. The request seeks
all documents "concerning communications" between UCSC personnel and third parties
"concerning the Chapter from January 1, 2013 to the present." This is simply unreasonably
overbroad. Request No. Nine thus unreasonably seeks documents which are irrelevant, not likely
to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and is an attempted invasion of the Student
Defendants'ight to privacy. (Cal. Const., Art 1;Mailhoit v. Home Depot U.S.A. (C.D. Cal. 2012)
CL
LLI
10 285 F.R.D. 566, 570; Code of Civ. Proc. $ 2017.010; CBS v. Sup. Ct., (1968) 263 Cal. App. 2d 12;
Britt v. Sup Ct. (1978) 20 Cal. 3d. 844.) There is no indication the request is not seeking private
12 information of the Student Defendants, including, at a minimum, private UCSC records or
m 5)o
~&-
o 22& 13 transcripts/grades of the Student Defendants, financial information, medical information.
0~g 0&0
o)-o
14 Furthermore, the incident from which this case originates occurred June 2, 2018, more than five
K~
IJJ
15 years after their time limitation start date of January 1, 2013. This includes time before which the
2+ Ã&
CO
Z
I- 16 Student Defendants attended UCSC and/or became involved with Theta Chi. The request also
17 seeks documents about the Theta Iota Chapter of Theta Chi Fraternity, and its members and
Preview
Law Offices of MATHENY SEARS LINKERT 4 JAIME, LLP MATTHEW C. JAIME (SBN 140340) ROBERT W. SWEETIN (SBN 297130) ELECTRONICALLY FILED 3638 American River Drive Superior Court of California Sacramento, California 95864 County of Santa Cruz Telephone: (916) 978-3434 7/30/2020 6:12 PM Facsimile: (916) 978-3430 Alex Calvo, Clerk m'aime mathen sears.com By: Araceli Lopez, Deputy rsweetin mathen sears.com Attorneys for Defendant, CHRISTOPHER GUEVARA (See Next Page For Additional Counsel) SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 10 COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ LLI K ~'4 ill) g lA Og ™g& KZ 12 DAPHNE BELETSIS, individually, and as Case No. 19CV03287 Administrator of the Estate of O ++w ALEXANDER BELETSIS, and YVONNE THE STUDENT DEFENDANTS'OINT ~~Zz& ~ 13 p 0&0 RAINEY, surviving parent of SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT y V)KP Q LJJ~ 14 ALEXANDER BELETSIS, deceased, OF MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA TO UC SANTA CRUZ rn "$ 15 Plaintiffs, Date: August 31, 2020 N LLI Z 16 Time: 8:30 a.m. I- Dept: 10 17 Judge: Honorable John Gallagher THETA CHI FRATERNITY, INC., a New York corporation, individually, as a member of and t/a the Theta Iota Chapter, 19 et al. Defendants. Complaint filed: 10/31/19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 THE STUDENT DEFENDANTS'OINT SEPARA TE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA TO UC SANTA CRUZ ADDITIONAL COUNSEL Julie Azevedo (SBN 151618) LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH, LLP 2185 North California Blvd., Suite 300 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 357-3456 Julie.Azevedo lewisbrisbois.com Attorneys for Defendant JORDAN KEIICHI TAKAYAMA Mary Childs (SBN 134274) YOKA & SMITH, LLP 445 South Figueroa Street, 38th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 427-2300 Q. Mchilds okasmith.com 10 LU Attorneys for Defendants BOBBY KARKI, X EMMANUEL THOMAS, DEREK KING and col w +N JOHN DYLAN LEITCH +o o ~~z 12 Patrick Ball (SBN 249844) O ++~ Zz& 13 MES SNER REEVES LLP ~ ~~&0 610 Newport Center Drive Suite 420 0 ~ th KP Newport Beach, CA 92660 I M~z 14 Telephone: (949) 612-9128 ddbll 15 N Attorneys for MOISES GARCIA Z 16 I Derek H. Lim (SBN 209496) 17 DEMLER, ARMSTRONG & ROWLAND, LLP 18 1350 Treat Blvd, Suite 400 Walnut Creek, CA 94597 19 Telephone: (415) 949-1900 20 l~dl Attorneys for Defendant BRADLEY VISACKI 21 Ray Tamaddon (SBN 144494) 22 HINSHAW &, CULBERTSON, LLP 11601 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 800 23 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Telephone: (310) 909-800 24 rtamaddon inshawlaw.com 25 Attorneys for Defendant ZACHARY NASH DAVIS 26 27 28 THE STUDENT DEFENDANTS'OINT SEPARA TE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA TO UC SANTA CRUZ Defendants Emmanuel Thomas, Bobby Karki, John Dylan Leitch, Jordan Keiichi Takayama, Brad Visacki, Zachary Davis, Zachary Davis, Moises Garcia and Christopher Guevara (" Student Defendants" ) jointly submit, under California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1345, the following separate statement in support of their joint Motion to Quash the subpoena served on the University of California, Santa Cruz, as follows: REQUEST NO. ONE All documents concerning any complaints or reports received by the University of California, Santa Cruz ("UCSC") related to allegations of violations of law and/or UCSC's Student Policies and Regulations Handbook by the Theta Iota Chapter of Theta Chi Fraternity (hereinafter, O. LLI 10 "Chapter" ), from January 1,2013 to the present. 8 ~a)CO OBJECTIONS TO REQUEST NO. ONK -REASONS WHY QUASHING THK REQUEST EL' y5 0 gz +~K 12 IS NECESSARY gl)O o&Z m ~- 13 Under the federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) 20 U.S.C. $ 1232g, f ~&00 V)P& ~ 14 the records sought seek to invade the Student Defendants'onstitutional right to privacy. FERPA w '4~UJ QJ4~ rh gy 15 is a federal law that is administered by the Family Policy Compliance Office in the United States W Pi)o gJ M K I- 16 Department of Education (20 U.S.C. $ 1232g; 34 CFR Part 99) and applies to all educational 17 agencies and institutions that receive funding under any program administered by the department. 18 FERPA generally prohibits the improper disclosure of personally identifiable information derived 19 from education records. Further, California State Law follows the protections provided under 20 FERPA. Request No. One specifically and directly seeks production of records of student conduct 21 investigations. Thus, under FERPA and corresponding California Law, the request seeks education 22 records protected from disclosure by FERPA. 23 The request is also overbroad, and seeks documents which are irrelevant, not likely to lead 24 to the discovery Defendants'ightof admissible evidence and is an attempted invasion of the Student 25 to privacy. (Cal. Const., Art 1; Mailhoit v. Home Depot U.S.A. (C.D. Cal. 2012) 285 F.R.D. 26 566, 570; Code of Civ. Proc. $ 2017.010; CBS v. Sup. Ct., (1968) 263 Cal. App. 2d 12; Britt v. Sup 27 Ct. (1978) 20 Cal. 3d. 844.) The inclusive listof documents is also likely to include personal 28 information about the Student Defendants, which is protected by their privacy rights and FERPA. 1 THE STUDENT DEFENDANTS 'OINT SEPARA TE STA TEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA TO UC SANTA CRUZ Request No. One does not limit the documents other than to January 1, 2013, to present. There is no indication the request is not seeking private information of the Student Defendants, including, at a minimum, private UCSC records or transcripts/grades of the Student Defendants, financial information, medical information. Furthermore, the incident from which this case originates occurred June 2, 2018, more than five years after their time limitation start date of January 1, 2013. This includes time before which the Student Defendants attended UCSC and/or became involved with Theta Chi. The request also seeks documents about the Theta Iota Chapter of Theta Chi Fraternity, and its members and pledges, without sufficient limitation. Further, the request also seeks private and confidential information relating to non-party third parties without limitation or 0. Ill 10 protection. Thus, the request could lead to the production of numerous documents that are 2 »S Cb irrelevant, private, or both. The request is unreasonably overbroad. O u-I-gz 12 REQUEST NO. TWO rn m)& o ~&- All documents and communications investigations UCSC into — Zz& 13 concerning any by the gg&o lL UJz 14 allegations of violations of UCSC's Student Policies and Regulations Handbook by the Chapter, c( 2QJ C~ IJJ f/j ca g 15 &om January 1, 2013 to the present. W Pvjo Z V) Z I 16 OBJECTIONS TO REQUEST NO. TWO -REASONS WHY QUASHING THE REQUEST 17 IS NECESSARY 18 Under the federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) 20 U.S.C. $ 1232g, 19 the records sought seek to invade the Student Defendants'onstitutional right to privacy. FERPA 20 is a federal law that is administered by the Family Policy Compliance Office in the United States 21 Department of Education (20 U.S.C. $ 1232g; 34 CFR Part 99) and applies to all educational 22 agencies and institutions that receive funding under any program administered by the department. 23 FERPA generally prohibits the improper disclosure of personally identifiable information derived 24 from education records. Further, California State Law follows the protections provided under 25 FERPA. Request No. Two specifically and directly seeks production of records of student conduct 26 investigations. Thus, under FERPA and corresponding California Law, the request seeks education 27 records protected from disclosure by FERPA. The request is also overbroad, and seeks documents which are irrelevant, not likely to lead 2 THE STUDENT DEFENDANTS 'OINT SEPARA TE STA TEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO g UASH SUBPOENA TO UC SANTA CRUZ to the discovery of admissible evidence Defendants'ight and is an attempted invasion of the Student to privacy. (Cal. Const., Art 1; Mailhoit v. Home Depot U.S.A. (C.D. Cal. 2012) 285 F.R.D. 566, 570; Code of Civ. Proc. $ 2017.010; CBS v. Sup. Ct., (1968) 263 Cal. App. 2d 12; Britt v. Sup Ct. (1978) 20 Cal. 3d. 844.) The inclusive list of documents is also likely to include personal information about the Student Defendants, which is protected by their privacy rights and FERPA. Request No. Two does not limit the documents other than to January 1, 2013, to present. There is no indication the request is not seeking private information of the Student Defendants, including, at a minimum, private UCSC records or transcripts/grades of the Student Defendants, financial information, medical information. Furthermore, the incident from which this case originates CL LLI 10 occurred June 2, 2018, more than five years aAer their time limitation start date of January 1, 2013. This includes time before which the Student Defendants attended UCSC and/or became involved u- p gz g~g I 12 with Theta Chi. The request also seeks documents about the Theta Iota Chapter of Theta Chi rn e)P ~0-'— o— Z 2& 13 Fraternity, and its members and pledges, without sufficient limitation. Further, the request also g J&O p O ELp Luz 14 seeks private and confidential information relating to non-party third parties without limitation or C~ LLI Q) cog protection. the request could lead to the production of numerous documents that are &go 15 Thus, Z Z I- 16 irrelevant, private, or both. The request is unreasonably overbroad. 17 REQUEST NO. THREE 18 The "letter of potential action items" referenced in, and described as attached to, the email 19 sent by Tara Dunn, Director of Collegiate Services, Theta Chi Fraternity, Inc. (" Theta Chi 20 National" ), to Clifford Golz, Assistant Dean of Students at UCSC, on or about April 27, 2016, at 21 4:36 PM. A copy of the April 27, 2016, email from Ms. Dunn to Assistant Dean Golz is attached 22 hereto as Exhibit A. The phrase "letter of potential action items" in Exhibit A has been highlighted 23 by the counsel for Plaintiffs for ease of reference. 24 OBJECTIONS TO REQUEST NO. THREE -REASONS WHY QUASHING THK 25 REQUEST IS NECESSARY 26 Under the federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) 20 U.S.C. $ 1232g, 27 the records sought seek to invade the Student Defendants'onstitutional right to privacy. FERPA 28 is a federal law that is administered by the Family Policy Compliance Office in the United States 3 THE STUDENT DEFENDANTS 'OINT SEPARA TE STA TEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA TO UC SANTA CRUZ Department of Education (20 U.S.C. $ 1232g; 34 CFR Part 99) and applies to all educational agencies and institutions that receive funding under any program administered by the department. FERPA generally prohibits the improper disclosure of personally identifiable information derived &om education records. Further, California State Law follows the protections provided under FERPA. Request No. Three directly seeks records pertaining to a student conduct investigation and is therefore an educational record afforded privacy protection under FERPA and corresponding California Law. (Cal. Const., Art 1; Mailhoit v. Home Depot U.S.A. (C.D. Cal. 2012) 285 F.R.D. 566, 570; Code of Civ. Proc. ) 2017.010; CBS v. Sup. Ct. (1968) 263 Cal. App. 2d 12; Bvitt v. Sup Ct. (1978) 20 Cal. 3d. 844.) L, UJ 10 Further, Request No. Three seeks private and confidential education records and 7 ~co CD information relating to non-party third parties without limitation or protection. Thus, the request U- 0 I-gZ g~ll 12 could lead to the production of numerous documents that are irrelevant, private, or both. The ~ ~+LL 0 — Z2& 13 request is unreasonably overbroad. ~~ 0&0 14 REQUEST NO. FOUR C~ IJJ Q) cog 15 All documents and communications concerning any investigation by the Chapter or Theta + Z c%0 gJ M Z I- 16 Chi National into allegations of violations of UCSC's Student Policies and Regulations Handbook 17 by the Chapter, from January 1,2013 to the present. 18 OBJECTIONS TO REQUEST NO. FOUR -REASONS WHY QUASHING THE 19 REQUEST IS NECESSARY 20 Under the federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) 20 U.S.C. $ 1232g, 21 the records sought seek to invade the Student Defendants'onstitutional right to privacy. FERPA 22 is a federal law that is administered by the Family Policy Compliance Office in the United States 23 Department of Education (20 U.S.C. $ 1232g; 34 CFR Part 99) and applies to all educational 24 agencies and institutions that receive funding under any program administered by the department. 25 FERPA generally prohibits the improper disclosure of personally identifiable information derived 26 from education records. Further, California State Law follows the protections provided under 27 FERPA. Request No. Four specifically and directly seeks production of records of student conduct 28 investigations that have been shared or have become part of UCSC's educational records. Thus, 4 THE STUDENT DEFENDANTS 'OINT SEPARA TE STA TEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA TO UC SANTA CRUZ under FERPA and corresponding California Law, the request seeks education records protected from disclosure by FERPA. The request is also overbroad, and seeks documents which are irrelevant, not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and is an attempted invasion of the Student Defendants'ight to privacy. (Cal. Const., Art 1; Mailhoit v. Home Depot U.S.A. (C.D. Cal. 2012) 285 F.R.D. 566, 570; Code of Civ. Proc. $ 2017.010; CBS v. Sup. Ct., (1968) 263 Cal. App. 2d 12; Britt v. Sup Ct. (1978) 20 Cal. 3d. 844.) The inclusive listof documents is also likely to include personal information about the Student Defendants, which is protected by their privacy rights and FERPA. Request No. Four does not limit the documents other than to January 1,2013, to present. There is CL LLI 10 no indication the request is not seeking private information of the Student Defendants, including, CD ) Co cn at a minimum, private and confidential education records. Furthermore, the incident from which Z 12 this case originates occurred June 2, 2018, more than five years after their time limitation start date O +~lL M LU)O o— ~&- Z2& 13 of January 1, 2013. This includes time before which the Student Defendants attended UCSC and/or &~ o&o lOPO CUJ~ 14 became involved with Theta Chi. The request also seeks documents about the Theta Iota Chapter LU &~ Q) cog &go 15 of Theta Chi Fraternity, and its members and pledges, without sufficient limitation. Further, the Z M QJ zI- 16 request also seeks private and confidential information relating to non-party third parties without 17 limitation or protection. Thus, the request could lead to the production of numerous documents 18 that are irrelevant, private, or both. The request is unreasonably overbroad. 19 REQUEST NO. FIVE 20 All communications between UCSC personnel Clifford Golz, Katherine Canales, Lucy 21 Rojas, Brian Arao, Sayo Fujioka, Cory Fung, Francisco Galvan, Carmen Gutierrez, Arian 22 Mendiola, Garrett Naiman, and/or Jose Sanchez, on the one hand, and any representative or 23 employee of Theta Chi National, on the other hand, including but not limited to Tara Dunn, Jordan 24 McGee, or Rory Vanlanot, from January 1, 2013 to the present. 25 OBJECTIONS TO REQUEST NO. FIVE -REASONS WHY QUASHING THE REQUEST 26 IS NECESSARY 27 Under the federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) 20 U.S.C. $ 1232g, -28 the records sought seek to invade the Student Defendants'onstitutional right to privacy. FERPA 5 THE STUDENT DEFENDANTS 'OINT SEPARA TE STA TEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA TO UC SANTA CRUZ is a federal law that is administered by the Family Policy Compliance Office in the United States Department of Education (20 U.S.C. $ 1232g; 34 CFR Part 99) and applies to all educational agencies and institutions that receive funding under any program administered by the department. FERPA generally prohibits the improper disclosure of personally identifiable information derived from education records. Further, California State Law follows the protections provided under FERPA. Request No. Five seeks records related to student conduct investigations by implication. The request is overbroad and thus would include educational records. (Cal. Const., Art 1;Mailhoi t v.Home Depot U.S.A. (C.D. Cal. 2012) 285 F.R.D. 566, 570; Code of Civ. Proc. f 2017.010; CBS v.Sup. Ct., (1968) 263 Cal. App. 2d 12; Britt v. Sup Ct. (1978) 20 Cal. 3d. 844.) The inclusive list CL UJ 10 of documents is also likely to include personal information about the Student Defendants, which is K~I protected by their privacy rights and FERPA. Request No. Five does not limit the documents other '+o& u- 0 I-g2 12 than to January 1, 2013, to present. There is no indication the request is not seeking private m u1)& o— ~&5 z z&~ 13 information of the Student Defendants, including, at a minimum, private UCSC records or g J&O ~ rn-"c 14 transcripts/grades of the Student Defendants, financial information, medical information or student C~ IJJ Q) aors 15 conduct investigation records. + 2 CD~ M X 16 Furthermore, the incident from which this case originates occurred June 2, 2018, more than 17 five years after their time limitation start date of January 1, 2013. This includes time before which the Student Defendants attended UCSC and/or became involved with Theta Chi. The request also 19 seeks documents about the Theta Iota Chapter of Theta Chi Fraternity, and its members and 20 pledges, without sufficient limitation. Further, the request also seeks private and confidential 21 information relating to non-party third parties without limitation or protection. Thus, the request 22 could lead to the production of numerous documents that are irrelevant, private, or both. The 23 request is unreasonably overbroad. 24 REQUEST NO. SIX 25 All documents concerning any actual or potential suspension, sanction, probation, 26 revocation, ban on campus recruiting, expulsion, or any other disciplinary action taken by UCSC 27 against the Chapter related to allegations of violation of any provision of UCSC's Student Policies 28 THE STUDENT DEFENDANTS 'OINT SEPARA TE STA TEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA TO UC SANTA CRUZ and Regulations Handbook, violation of California law, or violation of any other rules or policies, from January 1, 2013 to the present. OBJECTIONS TO REQUEST NO. SIX -REASONS WHY QUASHING THE REQUEST IS NECESSARY Under the federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) 20 U.S.C. $ 1232g, the records sought seek to invade the Student Defendants'onstitutional right to privacy. FERPA is a federal law that is administered by the Family Policy Compliance Office in the United States Department of Education (20 U.S.C. $ 1232g; 34 CFR Part 99) and applies to all educational agencies and institutions that receive funding under any program administered by the department. Q. LLI 10 FERPA generally prohibits the improper disclosure of personally identifiable information derived 4~$ »N from education records. Further, California State Law follows the protections provided under & o I-gz 12 FERPA. Request No. Six specifically and directly seeks production of records of student conduct m tu&o p LL — Zz& 13 investigations. Thus, under FERPA and corresponding California Law, the request seeks education g J&O0 o v)-o ~ g u:5+ ~gz 14 records protected from disclosure by FERPA. UJ thy'r)o 15 The request is also overbroad, and seeks documents which are irrelevant, not likely to lead Z z 16 to the discovery Defendants'ight of admissible evidence and is an attempted invasion of the Student 17 to privacy. (Cal. Const., Art 1; Mailhoit v. Home Depot U.S.A. (C.D. Cal. 2012) 285 F.R.D. 18 566, 570; Code of Civ. Proc. $ 2017.010; CBS v. Sup. Ct., (1968) 263 Cal. App. 2d 12; Britt v. Sup 19 Ct. (1978) 20 Cal. 3d. 844.) The inclusive list of documents is also likely to include personal 20 information about the Student Defendants, which is protected by their privacy rights and FERPA. 21 Request No. Six does not limit the documents other than to January 1, 2013, to present. There is 22 no indication the request is not seeking private information of the Student Defendants, including, 23 at a minimum, private UCSC records or transcripts/grades of the Student Defendants, financial 24 information, medical information. 25 Furthermore, the incident from which this case originates occurred June 2, 2018, more than 26 five years after their time limitation start date of January 1, 2013. This includes time before which 27 the Student Defendants attended UCSC and/or became involved with Theta Chi. The request also 28 seeks documents about the Theta Iota Chapter of Theta Chi Fraternity, and its members and 7 THE STUDENT DEFENDANTS 'OINT SEPARA TE STA TEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA TO UC SANTA CRUZ pledges, without sufficient limitation. Further, the request also seeks private and confidential information relating to non-party third parties without limitation or protection. Thus, the request could lead to the production of numerous documents that are irrelevant, private, or both. The request is unreasonably overbroad. REQUEST NO. SEVEN All documents concerning any alleged violations of UCSC's Student Policies and Regulations Handbook or any other rules or policies, or violations of law, by the Chapter, from January 1, 2013 to the present. OBJECTIONS TO REQUEST NO. SEVEN -REASONS WHY QUASHING THE 0. LLI 10 REQUEST IS NECESSARY X ~)I LA Under the federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) 20 U.S.C. $ 1232g, & p I-gz ~ 12 the records sought seek to invade the Student Defendants'onstitutional right to privacy. FERPA m gggp o ~&- Zz& 13 is a federal law that is administered by the Family Policy Compliance Office in the United States ~~ p 0&0 14 Department of Education (20 U.S.C. ( 1232g; 34 CFR Part 99) and applies to all educational C~ IJJ + 15 agencies and institutions that receive funding under any program administered by the department. 2 Ãp r iu I 16 FERPA generally prohibits the improper disclosure of personally identifiable information derived 17 from education records. Further, California State Law follows the protections provided under FERPA. Request No. Seven specifically and directly seeks production of records of student 19 conduct investigations. Thus, under FERPA and corresponding California Law, the request seeks 20 education records protected from disclosure by FERPA. 21 The request is also overbroad, and seeks documents which are irrelevant, not likely to lead 22 to the discovery Defendants'ightof admissible evidence and is an attempted invasion of the Student 23 to privacy. (Cal. Const., Art 1; Mailhoit v. Home Depot U.S.A. (C.D. Cal. 2012) 285 F.R.D. 24 566, 570; Code of Civ. Proc. $ 2017.010; CBS v. Sup. Ct., (1968) 263 Cal. App. 2d 12; Britt v. Sup 25 Ct. (1978) 20 Cal. 3d. 844.) The inclusive list of documents is also likely to include personal 26 information about the Student Defendants, which is protected by their privacy rights and FERPA. 27 Request No. Seven does not limit the documents other than to January 1, 2013, to present. There 28 is no indication the request is not seeking private information of the Student Defendants, including, 8 THE STUDENT DEFENDANTS 'OINT SEPARA TE STA TEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA TO UC SANTA CRUZ at a minimum, private UCSC records or transcripts/grades of the Student Defendants, financial information, medical information. Furthermore, the incident from which this case originates occurred June 2, 2018, more than five years after their time limitation start date of January 1, 2013. This includes time before which the Student Defendants attended UCSC and/or became involved with Theta Chi. The request also seeks documents about the Theta Iota Chapter of Theta Chi Fraternity, and its members and pledges, without sufficient limitation. Further, the request also seeks private and confidential information relating to non-party third parties without limitation or protection. Thus, the request could lead to the production of numerous documents that are irrelevant, private, or both. The Q. LLJ 10 request, and specifically the term "concerning" is treasonably overbroad. 2 REQUEST NO. EIGHT EL pj's ~ & O I-gz +~K 12 All documents and communications concerning UCSC's recognition of or relationship with m tu)o ~pLL O the Chapter and/or Theta Chi National from January 1, 2013 to the present. u +Z& 13 gg&V a — G 14 OBJECTIONS TO REQUEST NO. EIGHT -REASONS WHY QUASHING THE C~ LLI Mgg 15 REQUEST IS NECESSARY ~F)o Z M xI- 16 Under the federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) 20 U.S.C. $ 1232g, K 17 the records sought seek to invade the Student Defendants'onstitutional right to privacy. FERPA 18 is a federal law that is administered by the Family Policy Compliance Office in the United States 19 Department of Education (20 U.S.C. f 1232g; 34 CFR Part 99) and applies to all educational 20 agencies and institutions that receive funding under any program administered by the department. 21 FERPA generally prohibits the improper disclosure of personally identifiable information derived 22 from education records. Further, California State Law follows the protections provided under 23 FERPA. Request No. Eight is so broadly written that it invokes documents that would "concern" 24 student conduct investigation and other educational records and therefore violates the Student 25 Defendants, and perhaps non-party students'ights to privacy. 26 The request is also overbroad, and seeks documents which are irrelevant, not likely to lead 27Defendants'8 to the discovery right to privacy. of admissible (Cal. evidence Const;, Art 1; and is Mailhoit v. an attempted invasion of the Home Depot 9 U.S.A. (C.D. Student Cal. 2012) 285 F.R.D. THE STUDENT DEFENDANTS'OINT SEPARATE STA TEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA TO UC SANTA CRUZ 566, 570; Code of Civ. Proc. $ 2017.010; CBS v. Sup. Ct., (1968) 263 Cal. App. 2d 12; Britt v. Sup Ct. (1978) 20 Cal. 3d. 844.) The inclusive list of documents is also likely to include personal information about the Student Defendants, which is protected by their privacy rights and FERPA. Request No. Eight does not limit the documents other than to January 1, 2013, to present. There is no indication the request is not seeking private information of the Student Defendants, including, at a minimum, private UCSC records or transcripts/grades of the Student Defendants, financial information, medical information. Furthermore, the incident from which this case originates occurred June 2, 2018, more than five years after their time limitation start date of January 1, 2013. This includes time before which IL LLI 10 the Student Defendants attended UCSC and/or became involved with Theta Chi. The request also ~~e) ao cn seeks documents about the Theta Iota Chapter of Theta Chi Fraternity, and its members and os'~2 O +~EL 12 pledges, without sufficient limitation. Further, the request also seeks private and confidential ~ indigo ~pU — Zz& 13 information relating to non-party third parties without limitation or protection. Thus, the request 0z~ 0 &0 ~ 0 ~R.'p y U'z could lead to the production of numerous documents that are irrelevant, private, or both. The 4~UJ &~ IJJ g) cog 15 request is unreasonably overbroad. 0 Z P) K gJ Z I 16 REQUEST NO. NINE 17 All documents concerning communications between UCSC personnel Clifford 18 Golz,Katherine Canales, Lucy Rojas, Brian Arao, Sayo Fujioka, Cory Fung, Francisco Galvan, 19 Carmen Gutierrez, Arian Mendiola, Garrett Naiman, and/or Jose Sanchez, on the one hand, and 20 any law enforcement agency, on the other hand, concerning the Chapter &om January 1, 2013 to 21 the present. 22 OBJECTIONS TO REQUEST NO. NINE -REASONS WHY QUASHING THK REQUEST 23 IS NECESSARY 24 Under the federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) 20 U.S.C. )1232g, 25 the records sought seek to invade the Student Defendants'onstitutional right to privacy. FERPA 26 is a federal law that is administered by the Family Policy Compliance Office in the United States 27 Department of Education (20 U.S.C. $ 1232g; 34 CFR Part 99) and applies to all educational agencies and institutions that receive funding under any program administered by the department. 10 THE STUDENT DEFENDANTS'OINT SEPARA TE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA TO UC SANTA CRUZ FERPA generally prohibits the improper disclosure of personally identifiable information derived from education records. Further, California State Law follows the protections provided under FERPA. Request No. Nine is so broadly written is necessarily invokes production of education records held by UCSC regarding the Student Defendants and non-party students. The request seeks all documents "concerning communications" between UCSC personnel and third parties "concerning the Chapter from January 1, 2013 to the present." This is simply unreasonably overbroad. Request No. Nine thus unreasonably seeks documents which are irrelevant, not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and is an attempted invasion of the Student Defendants'ight to privacy. (Cal. Const., Art 1;Mailhoit v. Home Depot U.S.A. (C.D. Cal. 2012) CL LLI 10 285 F.R.D. 566, 570; Code of Civ. Proc. $ 2017.010; CBS v. Sup. Ct., (1968) 263 Cal. App. 2d 12; Britt v. Sup Ct. (1978) 20 Cal. 3d. 844.) There is no indication the request is not seeking private 12 information of the Student Defendants, including, at a minimum, private UCSC records or m 5)o ~&- o 22& 13 transcripts/grades of the Student Defendants, financial information, medical information. 0~g 0&0 o)-o 14 Furthermore, the incident from which this case originates occurred June 2, 2018, more than five K~ IJJ 15 years after their time limitation start date of January 1, 2013. This includes time before which the 2+ Ã& CO Z I- 16 Student Defendants attended UCSC and/or became involved with Theta Chi. The request also 17 seeks documents about the Theta Iota Chapter of Theta Chi Fraternity, and its members and