Victor Valley Union High Sch. Dist. v. The Superior Court
| Decision Date | 22 December 2022 |
| Docket Number | E078673 |
| Parties | VICTOR VALLEY UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT, Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, Respondent; JOHN DOE, Real Party in Interest. |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Original Proceedings; petition for extraordinary writ. Wilfred J. Schneider, Jr., Judge. Granted.
Cummings, McClorey, Davis, Acho & Associates and Ryan D Miller for Petitioner.
No appearance for Respondent.
Carrillo Law Firm, Luis A. Carrillo, Michael S. Carrillo, J. Miguel Flores; The Senators (Ret.) Firm, Ronald T. Labriola; Esner, Chang & Boyer, Holly N. Boyer, Shea S. Murphy and Kathleen J. Becket for Real Party in Interest.
John MM. Doe, by and through his guardian ad litem, C.M. (Doe's mother), and B.S. (Doe's father) (collectively real parties in interest), sued petitioner Victor Valley Union High School District (the district) for negligence and other causes of action arising from an alleged sexual assault on Doe while he was a high school student. During discovery, real parties in interest learned video that captured some of the events surrounding the alleged sexual assault had been erased.
Real parties in interest moved the superior court for terminating sanctions or, in the alternative, evidentiary and issue sanctions against the district under Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030.[1] The trial court concluded the erasure of the video was the result of negligence, and not intentional wrongdoing, and denied the request for terminating sanctions. However, the court granted the request for evidentiary, issue, and monetary sanctions because it concluded that, even before the lawsuit was filed, the district should have reasonably anticipated the alleged sexual assault would result in litigation and, therefore, the district was under a duty to preserve all relevant evidence including the video.
In this original proceeding, the district argues the trial court applied the wrong legal standard when it ruled the district had the duty to preserve the video before it was erased and, therefore, that the district was not shielded from sanctions by the safe-harbor provision of section 2023.030, subdivision (f) (hereafter § 2023.030(f)). We stayed the proceedings in the trial court and subsequently issued an order to show cause. After considering real parties in interest's opposition to the petition and the district's reply, we now grant the petition and direct the trial court to vacate its sanctions order and reconsider its ruling.
As explained post, we hold the safe-harbor provision of section 2023.030(f) shields a party from sanctions for the spoliation of electronic evidence only if the evidence was altered or destroyed when the party was not under a duty to preserve the evidence, and the duty to preserve relevant evidence is triggered when the party is objectively on notice that litigation is reasonably foreseeable, meaning litigation is probable and likely to arise from an incident or dispute and not a mere possibility. Although the trial court used some language in its order that seems to indicate the court believed the duty to preserve evidence arises when litigation is a mere possibility, the court nonetheless appears to have applied the reasonably foreseeable standard advanced by the district in its opposition to the sanctions motion. However, we conclude the extant record does not support the trial court's ruling that, at the time the video was erased, the district was on notice that litigation about Doe's alleged sexual assault was reasonably foreseeable.
In their complaint, real parties in interest alleged Doe was a minor and a student enrolled in classes at one of the district's high schools. Doe required constant adult supervision in or outside the classroom. School personnel had reassured Doe's father that Doe would not be allowed to move freely around the campus unsupervised "because of his susceptibility to suggestion and [because he] might wander anywhere with anyone."
Real parties in interest alleged that, on or about March 8, 2019, two male students took Doe, who was not supervised by an adult at the time, to a bathroom where they sexually assaulted him. Real parties in interest alleged the same two students had sexually assaulted Doe on five or six prior occasions, and they threatened Doe that if he told anyone what had happened or if he resisted inappropriate sexual advances "something bad would happen to him." They also alleged, "the incident of the boys entering into the bathroom to abuse [Doe] was video-recorded." Real parties in interest alleged the sexual assault was the result of the district's breach of its duty to protect and supervise Doe while on school grounds. The complaint stated causes of action for negligence and sexual harassment by Doe and a cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress by Doe's mother and father.[2]
When the high school's assistant principal was informed of the alleged incident, he and a security officer reviewed video footage for March 5, 6, and 7, 2018, from cameras positioned in the lunchroom. According to the assistant principal, the video footage for March 7 showed Doe seated next to another student in the lunchroom. The other student made a gesture with his hand, Doe nodded, and the two got up from the lunch table and walked toward the locked bathroom. When a third student walked out of the bathroom, Doe and the other student entered the bathroom. They were inside the bathroom for about four minutes. A classroom aid, who did not know the boys were inside the bathroom, escorted another student to the bathroom. Doe and the other student then exited the bathroom and lined up with the rest of the class for physical education.
On March 21, 2018, the assistant principal wrote a half-page narrative report about the incident and forwarded it to the district's risk manager. The assistant principal did not save the March 7 video footage from the lunchroom because he assumed the school security officer had done so or would do so. The video was automatically erased 14 days after the alleged assault.
On September 5, 2018, real parties in interest submitted a government claim for damages to the district.
In their sanctions motion, real parties in interest argued that, because witnesses no longer remembered details of the incident or precisely what the video depicted, real parties in interest were "left with only a limited account" of what had taken place and they were "severely prejudiced" in their ability to develop their case. They argued the trial court should impose a terminating sanction under section 2023.030 by striking the district's answer and entering a default judgment because: (1) the district knew the importance of preserving the video; (2) the district's failure to preserve the video proved they had intentionally destroyed evidence; and (3) real parties in interest were prejudiced by the loss of crucial evidence. In the alternative, real parties in interest requested the trial court impose issue and evidence sanctions that essentially precluded the district from proving it did not act negligently and/or that Doe was contributorily negligent. In addition, they requested monetary sanctions in the amount of $7,060.
In its opposition, the district argued the trial court should deny the motion in its entirety. According to the district, it was shielded from any sanctions for the routine and good faith erasure of the video, under the safe-harbor provision of section 2023.030(f), because it was not under a duty to preserve evidence at the time of the erasure. Relying primarily on federal caselaw on the spoliation of evidence, the district argued a duty to preserve evidence that might be relevant in future litigation does not arise until litigation is reasonably foreseeable, meaning it is probable and not merely a possibility. The district argued that, when the video was erased, a lawsuit from Doe was a mere possibility.
In reply, real parties in interest argued the district did reasonably anticipate that litigation would arise from the incident, that the safe-harbor provision of section 2023.303(f) did not apply, and that the district's intentional destruction of crucial evidence warranted imposition of discovery sanctions.
At the hearing on the motion, counsel for the district argued the motion should be denied because Doe's lawsuit was not probable when the video was erased. Counsel argued there was no evidence the district had "any notice there was going to be litigation," and the record did not show the district "had actual knowledge that it was probable litigation would be pending." Counsel for real parties in interest argued that, based on its practice of saving video footage for law enforcement investigations, the district was on notice of potential litigation. In addition, they argued the district was under a statutory duty to preserve the video.
In its written order dated February 23, 2022, the trial court ruled that the assistant principal (and, therefore, the district) knew the video would be important evidence "if any further investigation, or eventual investigation, arose from the incident." Based solely on the district's special relationship with Doe and its attendant duty of care toward him, the court ruled the district "had a duty to preserve the video footage." The court found that, as early as March 9, 2018, the day Doe's father was informed of the alleged sexual assault, "it was reasonably foreseeable the incident might result in litigation because of School's special duty to Doe." Therefore, the court implicitly rejected the district's assertion that it was shielded from sanctions by the...
To continue reading
Request your trial