Judge compells compliance: Sanctions against BCS

2009-10 Attorney's Fees Request

We just received the order from Judge Lucas, compelling BCS compliance with the discovery process and hitting BCS with sanctions in the amount of $51,085.60.

When BCS brought a motion against LASD to demand that we pay their legal fees for the 2009-10 lawsuit, LASD rightly challenged that claim.  The legal process provides that we are entitled to discovery of evidence that might support our defense.  We filed that discovery this past summer, but BCS has been stonewalling and refusing to provide a response.  On Oct 30, 2012, we argued in front of Judge Lucas to compel that discovery.  Today, Judge Lucas ordered BCS to comply with the discovery.  In the grand scheme of legal rulings, compelling someone to comply with discovery is akin to making them look both ways before they cross the street-- everyone knows you're supposed to do it, so it shouldn't surprise if you fight that and lose the argument.  What was interesting was that Judge Lucas also imposed sanctions against BCS.  By law, the sanctions aren't punitive- it's just meant to make sure we don't have to spend money to get what we are legally entitled to get (the evidence we need for our defense).  I'm told by many lawyers, though, that judges rarely hand out sanctions. 

In her ruling, Judge Lucas says, "Petitioner’s argument that the existence of some evidence to support its factual position should preclude discovery is so contrary to the basic purpose of discovery that it is not reasonably asserted. Accordingly, Respondents’ request for monetary sanctions is granted."  One would think that would inspire cooperation, but we'll have to wait and see.

To be fair, folks need to keep in mind the scope of our victory.  We haven't yet defeated the BCS effort to claim $1.3M in legal fees.  We've just forced them to  provide the evidence we need to defend ourselves in the suit.  Still, I'm pleased to see that the Judge has spoken out against their bad behavior.

Here's the full text of the order:
BCS v. LASD Order Granting Motion to Compel

Congratulations to Oak School

Around here, we know Los Altos Schools are pretty special.  It was that much sweeter, then, to attend a celebration at Oak School yesterday.  Principal Amy Romem hosted two sessions to share with the students and parents her trip to Washington, DC to accept the President's Blue Ribbon School Award.

The Blue Ribbon program recognizes excellence in education.  There are over 133,000 public schools in America.  Only 219 public schools received this award, recognizing their academic achievement, the culuture of the school and exemplary work by the staff.  The team at Oak - the teachers, staff, parents, students, and principal- should be congratulated for their outstanding work.  Well done, Oak!

What do you want to know?

It appears that someone may have hired a private investigator to dig into my life.  Aside from how ridiculous this is, let me just state it simply:  There's nothing to find.  I'm an elected official.  I have to disclose a slew of information (my salary, my wife's salary, every gift I receive from non-family members, every sporting event I attend where someone else bought the tickets, what stocks and real estate I might own, etc.)  I understand this, and it was part of the deal when I ran for public office.  I just don't like the sliminess of someone doing this behind the scenes.

So I'll put it out there:  If you want to know something about me, ask.  Don't lurk in the shadows- have the courage to ask me the question directly.

BCS Appeals (Again)

2012-13 Facilities case

I am saddened to report that BCS has filed another appeal.  If this starts to sound convoluted and ridiculous, one could be forgiven for thinking that's part of their legal strategy.

In July 2012, BCS brought a motion before the Superior Court, asking them to use the ruling from the 2009-10 case to find that the 2012-13 offer was improper.  This was a highly irregular move, and the District vigorously contested it at a hearing on August 30, 2012 in front of Judge Lucas.** 

Apparently seeing the writing on the wall after the Aug 30 hearing, BCS did what they should have done at the outset- they filed a new suit, and they did so before Judge Lucas even finalized her ruling form teh Aug 30 hearing.  We had the first hearing for the new lawsuit on Oct 30, and we are currently awaiting a final ruling form the judge on the three issues BCS raised.  The Judge's tentative rulings, though were all favorable to the District. 

Given what seems the likely outcome of the new litigation, apparently BCS has now decided to keep the litigation alive on the other path (which was improper to begin with.)  The Judge issued a ruling in Sept 2012 that said she could not rule on the 12-13 offer under the 09-10 judgement because the facts are all different.  BCS is now appealing that ruling.  It seems crazy to be litigating this on two paths at the same time.  However, it also fits a pattern from BCS to continue to use litigation to try to get the District to simply "cave" and close a high performing neighborhood school. 

I remain disappointed in this behavior.  Litigation is wasteful to begin with.  For BCS to now try to create two paths of litigation in parallel (while apparently not succeeding on either path) is a horrendous waste of taxpayer resources. 

We actually received their Notice of Appeal on November 9th- it has taken me a few days to get this posted.

As is my custom, here is the legal filing:
BCS Notice of Appeal  of Aug 30 Hearing



**Those who attended the hearing might recall the Judge pointing this out to the BCS attorney.  She asked "What am I to make of the additional students [that BCS enrolled in 7th and 8th grade]."  The BCS attorney responded "well, pretend they don't exist for a moment."

BCS Hearing Follow-Up (Atty Fees)

By now, many of you have seen Mark Goines' summary from the BCS hearing in front of Judge Lucas on Oct 30.  That hearing was to address several issues:

1)  the discovery motion filed by LASD in response to BCS's lawsuit demanding attorney fees in the 2009-10 case
2)  BCS complaints in the 2012-13 facilities allocation
3)  LASD cross-motion on the 2012-13 complaint, asking for clarity on BCS' status as a public school

Judge Lucas was very thorough, and we anxiously await her rulings in these matters.

I want to share one exchange from the hearing that I found quite amazing.  Judge Lucas first wanted to address the discovery motion from the attorney fee case.  LASD had first filed a fairly broad discovery request.  BCS objected and so Judge Lucas held a "meet and confer" call, where LASD significantly reduced the scope of what we were asking BCS to produce.  The most significant change was that we dropped our request for any personal information related to BCS donors.  We restricted the scope to say "give us the amount of each of the top 25 donations, and the status of each of the corresponding donors.  Is the donor a BCS parent?  Community member?  Corporation?  Non-profit entity?"  By removing any personal information, we sought to remove BCS' largest objection (that we were invading someone's privacy) and therefore make it easier for BCS to comply.  All of this happened prior to the hearing on Oct 30th.

During the hearing, there was some back-and-forth about the exact language in the District's proposed court order granting the discovery.  Prior to the hearing, we received a declaration from BCS that caused us to want to go back a couple more years and collect the same information over a slightly broader time period.  I am not certain whether this was discussed this during the "meet and confer" process, and BCS argued that it was a "new" request.

The exchange from here skipped "strange" and went straight to "are you serious?"  Judge Lucas said that the additional request would be permissible under the circumstances.  BCS objected to the additional scope, and the judge again said it would be permissible.  BCS stuck to their guns and said LASD would have to file an additional discovery request.  The judge asked them if they were really going to require that LASD file additional paperwork, esp in light of the fact that she's already telling them that the request is permissible.  BCS dug their heels in and said they weren't willing to allow these two requests to be dealt with in a single order, but that instead we should all be dragged through the process again-- even though the judge has already acknowledged that the District's request is permissible.

Their attorney has indicated that they are going to fight this discovery every step of the way.  Judge Lucas' last action on this was to instruct the LASD attorney to redraft the Discovery order to comply with the outcome of the "meet and confer" process (excluding the additional discovery request).  Assuming Judge Lucas signs that order, I would not be surprised to see BCS file an appeal.  After incorrectly accusing LASD of "dragging out the process" in August, it seems that BCS is now the one who is undeniably using delay tactics.  The District remains committed to pursuing this information.  It is BCS who put it at issue- we just want to get to the truth.