Objection. Responding party objects to this request on the following grounds: (1) Vague and ambiguous; (2) overly broad; (3) seeks proprietary information coming from an independent, third party vendor; (4) possibly seeks information constituting confidential employment information and thus may invade the privacy rights of a person who is not a party to this litigation; (5) the information may be duplicative of the juvenile records already released to Plaintiff[s] by the Juvenile Court in response to Welfare and Institutions Code [(“WIC”) section] 827 Petition(s); (6) disclosure, absent an appropriate order from the juvenile court, may constitute a violation of WIC Section 827, et. seq.; and (7) may include information constituting attorney work product or protected from disclosure by attorney-client privilege.

entire, unredacted, JUVENILE CASE FILE(S). (For purposes of this request, “JUVENILE CASE FILE(S)” is defined pursuant to Cal. R. of Court, Rule 5.552(a), and means:

(1) All DOCUMENTS filed in a juvenile court case;

(2) Reports to the court by probation officers, social workers of child welfare services programs, and [court appointed special advocates (“CASA”)] volunteers;

(3) DOCUMENTS made available to probation officers, social workers of child welfare services programs, and CASA volunteers in preparation of reports to the court;

(4) DOCUMENTS relating to a child concerning whom a petition has been filed in juvenile court that are maintained in the office files of probation officers, social workers of child welfare services programs, and CASA volunteers;

(5) Transcripts, records, or reports relating to matters prepared or released by the court, probation department, or child welfare services program; and

(6) DOCUMENTS, video or audio tapes, photographs, and exhibits admitted into evidence at juvenile court hearings.)

Objection. Responding party objects to this request on the following grounds: (1) overly broad; (2) seeks documents protected from disclosure by [WIC] § 827; (3) violates right to privacy of persons who are not a party to this litigation. Juvenile case file records are only available through an 827 petition and juvenile court order authorizing and ordering the release. There is, at present, no order authorizing the release of the “entire, unredacted” juvenile case file.

Objection. Responding party objects to this request on the following grounds: (1) vague, and ambiguous; (2) overly broad; (3) seeks documents protected from disclosure by [WIC] § 827; (4) violates right to privacy of persons who are not a party to this litigation; and (5) responsive documents are equally accessible to Plaintiff[s]. Juvenile case file records are only available through an 827 petition and juvenile court order authorizing and ordering the release. There is, at present, no order authorizing the release of the “entire, unredacted” juvenile case file.

1) “This Court has the power to order disclosure of juvenile case file materials, notwithstanding State law”;

2) “The balance weighs in favor of disclosure”;

a. “The magnitude of an[y] encroachment on privacy rights is minimal” because:
b. “Plaintiffs K.W.1 and K.W.2 do not object to the release of their juvenile case files”;
c. “David Jakubowski—a sexual predator—has diminished privacy rights”;
d. “A protective order and Plaintiffs' counsel's duties will protect Plaintiffs' and any other third party's privacy interests”; and

e. “Plaintiffs, themselves, may review and obtain the unredacted juvenile records – without a court order”;

3) “The juvenile case file materials are highly relevant, and necessary to prosecute Plaintiffs' claims”;

4) “Juvenile case file and related documents are not readily available from other sources”;

5) “The public has a special interest in civil rights litigation”;

6) There is an “interest in judicial fact-finding and serious[ ] ... litigation”; and

7) “State law cannot act as a shield to protect a government official from liability for civil rights violations.”

1) “Plaintiff[s'] request for ‘juvenile case files’ as defined by California rules of court is inherently over broad”;

2) “Plaintiffs' requests violate WIC 827 to which the County is bound, and seeks to invalidate the privacy and due process rights of non-party minors”;

3) The RFCs “also possibly implicate a slew of other statutory privileges concerning the release of information” and “[s]ince Plaintiff[s] ha[ve] not identified a specific category of information sought from the juvenile case files, it is impossible to address each statutory privilege” and, thus, “the federal court would need to conduct its own in-camera review of the entire ‘juvenile case file’ (as maintained by County DPSS) to determine what information should be released and whether redactions should be made pursuant to objections” and “[t]his process should be undertaken by the juvenile court, as the court presiding over California juvenile proceedings and the court regularly conducting this type of in-camera review of the juvenile case file.”

*4 4) Plaintiffs' request for “the entire juvenile case file materials invades the privacy and due process rights of non-party minors.”

5) Plaintiffs' request for “the entire juvenile case file for [D.J.], a non-party[,] ... is non-specific, but it is necessary for Plaintiff[s] to make a particularized request so that the Court can analyze which specific records in the juvenile case file are requested and whether they should be produced”;

6) “The potential for harm in a disclosure of [D.J.'s] records is great” because “[D.J.] is not a party to the instant case, and his interest in the production of his entire non-redacted juvenile case is not represented”;

7) “[T]here are inadequate safeguards to prevent unauthorized disclosure of [D.J.'s] unredacted juvenile case file. A protective order would not prevent unauthorized disclosure, because [D.J.] would not be a party to any protective order”;

8) “Plaintiff[s] ha[ve] not articulated a need for access to [D.J.'s] entire juvenile case file[ ]” and “[t]here is no need to request the entire juvenile case file, where Plaintiff[s] already appear[ ] to be in possession of the vast majority of the file”;

9) “[T]here is no express statutory mandate, articulated public policy, or other recognizable public interest militating toward access of an unredacted juvenile case file” and “[c]ase law suggests consideration should absolutely be given to the WIC 827 process, whether in the State Juvenile Court, or in Federal court”;

10) “The majority of Plaintiff[s'] [M]otion uses the [Maldonado v. Sec'y of Calif. Dep't of Corr. & Rehab., No. 2:06CV02696-MCE/GGH, 2007 WL 4249811 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 30, 2007) (“Maldonado”)] analysis for the argument in favor of disclosure of the juvenile case files” but the “[C]ourt should not even get to the Maldonado analysis for the reasons stated above” and “the Maldonado analysis is nearly impossible because Plaintiff[s] do[ ] not specify what records are desired other than the ‘entire juvenile case file’ ”; and

11) “As to Plaintiff[s'] request for SafeMeasures case and referral histories, the data available through that database necessarily implicates WIC 827 because the data consists of juvenile case specific information[,]” which “clearly falls within the California Rules of Court, Rule 5.552(a)'s definition of ‘juvenile case file’ that are confidential, requiring a petition through the WIC 827 process.” Further, Plaintiffs “do not articulate why they are needed or what information they hope to gain” and “the juvenile court would have broad expertise with the type of information being entered into the SafeMeasures database and is therefore in the best position to determine whether SafeMeasures data should be released to the parties.”

1) “This Court has the power to order disclosure of juvenile case file materials, notwithstanding state law”;

2) “This Court should order disclosure of the juvenile case file materials”;

3) “The Maldonado balancing test weighs in favor of disclosure”;

4) “Disclosure of the entire juvenile case file is appropriate”;

5) “A protective order will protect Plaintiffs' and any other third party's privacy interests”;

*5 6) “Defendant's informational privacy test is misguided”;

7) “Defendant failed to show that an in camera review is necessary”; and

8) “Plaintiffs' requests are reasonably particularized.”

Unless otherwise limited by court order, the scope of discovery is as follows: Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties' relative access to relevant information, the parties' resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit. Information within this scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable.

“[T]he court must balance the interests of the child and other parties to the juvenile court proceedings, the interests of the petitioner, and the interests of the public. If the court grants the petition, the court must find that the need for discovery outweighs the policy considerations favoring confidentiality of juvenile case files. The confidentiality of juvenile case files is intended to protect the privacy rights of the child. The court may permit disclosure of juvenile case files only insofar as is necessary, and only if petitioner shows by a preponderance of the evidence that the records requested are necessary and have substantial relevance to the legitimate need of the petitioner.”

Plaintiffs' lawsuit targets, in part, the Defendants (1) failure to protect Plaintiffs from harm and/or created a danger to Plaintiffs, (2) breached their mandatory statutory duties, and (3) were negligent. The Juvenile Case Files, SafeMeasures, and related documents are relevant and proportional to Plaintiffs' claims and the issues in the case.

SafeMeasures is a full-agency data solution to social service case management. Near real-time analyses offer current reports on every client served.

SafeMeasures helps monitor practice and outcomes, and allows a social worker to drill down to critical information on every client and case.

The SafeMeasures “Referral” and/or “Case History” pages, in part, help the social worker prepare for case conferences and write the court reports. In fact, when a social worker is just assigned a case, they use the “history” pages to learn what has taken place in the case.

Further, the burden to obtain the requested history pages is de minimis. Indeed, SafeMeasures is an electronic database, and the requested pages are accessible by simply clicking the “H”/“history” button/link.

As a result, the SafeMeasures Case History Reports bear on the issues in the case.