Burke et al v. Brentwood Union School District et al

Filing 88

ORDER Directing Production of Documents from Juvenile Criminal Case File by Magistrate Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte. (shyS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/22/2016)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

NATALIE BURKE, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

8
v.

9
10

BRENTWOOD UNION SCHOOL
DISTRICT, et al.,

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

ORDER DIRECTING PRODUCTION
OF DOCUMENTS FROM JUVENILE
CRIMINAL CASE FILE
Re: Dkt. No. 78, 79, 83

Defendants.
I.

BACKGROUND
On June 28, 2016, Plaintiffs and Defendants jointly filed a Stipulation for Order Directing

Production of the Clerk’s Transcript on Appeal and the Criminal File of the Attorney General’s
Office seeking materials related to the juvenile court prosecution of J.L. This request was
precipitated by Plaintiffs’ discovery of references in the clerk’s transcript of J.L.’s state court
habeas corpus petition regarding the discovery in November 2013 by BUSD personnel of matters
potentially related to Plaintiff’s case.

19
20

Case No. 15-cv-00286-EDL

On June 29, 2016, the California Attorney General filed a Motion to Intervene and Object
to Stipulation for Order Directing Disclosure of Criminal File. The Court granted the motion to
intervene. The Court ordered Plaintiffs and Defendants333 to file, by July 5, 2016, a supplemental
brief to address the scope of appropriately tailored discovery from J.L.’s criminal files subject to
the existing protective order and ordered Intervenor to respond to that supplemental brief by July
7, 2016.
On July 5, 2016, Plaintiffs timely filed a supplemental brief narrowing the scope of
discovery. Dkt. 77. Defendants filed an untimely brief on July 6, 2016 requesting additional
discovery exceeding the parameters of the Court’s Order. Dkt. 78. Intervenor filed a timely

1

response on July 7, 2016. Dkt. 83.

2

II.

3

DISCUSSION
Plaintiffs have now narrowed the materials they seek to those that relate to Defendants’

4

prior knowledge of J.L.’s aggressive behaviors tending to show that he presented a danger of harm

5

to other students, including but not limited to M.B. Specifically, Plaintiffs point to the following

6

statement in the clerk’s transcript of J.L.’s state habeas petition: “In November of 2013 school

7

officials at the Adams Middle School in Brentwood, California discovered that students were

8

sharing sexually explicit images via social media applications on their phones.” Plaintiffs

9

specifically seek:

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17

The associated testimony or exhibits, including any writing and
statements from all witnesses (parent(s), student(s), employee(s) or
other) referring to the knowledge of any BUSD employee relating to
the following categories:
1. sexting incident(s) or any related investigation of sexting
involving AMS students prior to March 7, 2014;
2. J.L.’s violence, bullying, sexual harassment, threats or extortion
prior to March, 7 2014;
3. J.L.’s sexual misconduct prior to March 7, 2014;
4. J.L.’s presence inside school bathrooms with girls prior to March
7, 2014;
5. any investigation into J.L.’s conduct prior to March 7, 2014
Plaintiffs state that this information is relevant to a key issue in this case, which is

18

Defendants’ knowledge of J.L.’s danger to other students prior to March 7, 2014, when the

19

allegations regarding M.B. came to light. They point out that Defendants have filed a summary

20

judgment motion claiming that they had no knowledge that J.L. posed a substantial risk of harm to

21

Plaintiff or other students until Plaintiff’s report. Plaintiff believes the file associated with J.L.’s

22

habeas petition will contain information it needs to refute this claim.

23

Intervenor states that the scope of Plaintiff’s request has been sufficiently narrowed and

24

submit to the Court’s discretion in this matter. Intervenor also requests that the Court conduct an

25

in camera review pursuant to California Welfare and Institutions Code section 827 of the

26

documents to be produced.

27
28

Defendants assert that Plaintiffs’ request is “overbroad” but do not state in what way this is
the case. Defendants also seek additional materials from J.L.’s criminal files that they have never
2

1

before sought to obtain by subpoena or otherwise informed the Court or apparently the Attorney

2

General of any need for trial. These materials relate to information regarding statements made by

3

two minors to whom J.L.’s investigator spoke regarding M.B.’s allegations. Intervenor points out

4

that this request is highly invasive and concerns two non-party minors who have not had notice

5

and a chance to object to it. In addition, discovery has closed. Therefore, the Court denies this

6

request.

7

III.

8
9

ORDER
Within five days of the date of this Order, Intervenor shall turn over all documents

contained in J.L.’s criminal files responsive to Plaintiff’s narrowly tailored request as set out in
this Order. These documents shall be designated as “confidential” under the protective order the

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

parties filed with the Court on May 1, 2015. Dkt. 20. Intervenor may withhold only those

12

documents that are shielded from discovery by the attorney-client privilege, or those which are

13

truly protected by a legitimate privacy interest that is not adequately addressed by the existing

14

protective order. However, the Court is unlikely to uphold any such privacy objections, because

15

the existing protective order in this case would generally provide adequate privacy protection.

16

Intervenor may also shield the identity of minors by agreeing with the parties on a convention

17

such as using initials to identify any minor while providing the actual names to the parties only if

18

needed. Further, the Court expects the parties and Intervenor to meet and confer before raising

19

with the Court any privacy issues, as required by Local Rule 37-1(a). If any documents are

20

withheld or redacted, within ten court days of this Order, Intervenor shall provide a privilege log

21

to the parties, identifying each document withheld on privilege or privacy grounds.

22
23

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 22, 2016

24
25
ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE
United States Magistrate Judge

26
27
28
3