K.H. v. Antioch Unified School District ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 10 K.H., a minor, by and through his Guardian ad Litem MARTARICE HUMPHREY, 11 No. C 18-07716 WHA Plaintiff, 12 v. 13 ORDER DENYING ANTIOCH UNIFIED SCHOOL ADMINISTRATIVE 14 DISTRICT, a public entity; CATAPULT MOTION TO SEAL LEARNING WEST, LLC, a limited liability 15 company dba Sierra School of Antioch; SAMUEL MCBRIDE, an individual; 16 JONIQUE ANDREWS, an individual; BRUNO DIAZ, an individual; CORY 17 MOORE, an individual; RUTH RUBALCAVA, an individual; 18 STEPHANIE ANELLO, an individual; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, 19 Defendants. 20 21 22 In this action for the mistreatment of a student, the undersigned ordered defendant 23 Catapult Learning West, LLC to submit two charts illuminating the corporate structure of TVG- 24 Catapult Holdings (Dkt. Nos. 121, 125). Catapult submitted these charts and moved to seal 25 them, claiming attorney-client privilege (Dkt. No. 134). 26 Prior orders set out the facts of this case (Dkt. No. 58). In brief, plaintiff is a child with a 27 learning disability. AUSD placed him in a special education program at the Sierra School, 1 classroom, with teacher permission. Finding plaintiff out of class, teacher aides Jonique 2 Andrews and Samuel McBride allegedly grabbed plaintiff and dragged him back into the 3 classroom. In forcing the 14-year-old back into his seat they held his hands behind his back, 4 held him by the back of his neck, slammed him into the floor (hitting his head on a desk in the 5 process), and placed him in a two-person pro-act prone restraint, or so it is alleged. Plaintiff left 6 with a gash under his eye, a split lip, and bleeding gums (Dkt. Nos. 58 at 1–2, 74 at 3). 7 Plaintiff filed his first amended complaint alleging a host of federal and state claims 8 against the teacher-aids, other supervisory employees, AUSD, and the limited liability company 9 believed to own the school and employ some of the individual defendants, Catapult Learning 10 West, LLC. Whether Catapult Learning West was correctly identified, however, is an open 11 question. 12 The difficulty stems from the complex corporate structure of Catapult Learning, Inc., the 13 parent company of Catapult Learning West, LLC. Catapult Learning, Inc. — renamed in 14 August 2019 as “FB Topco, Inc.,” though still referred to generally as “Catapult Learning” — 15 provides K–12 instructional services to public and private schools in the United States. In 2015, 16 it merged with Specialized Education Services, Inc. The merged company operates three 17 separate groups or “silos” of businesses. One group includes a line of companies that 18 culminates with Catapult Learning West, the named defendant in this suit. Another group 19 includes a line of companies that culminates with Specialized Education of California, Inc., the 20 newly alleged owner of Sierra School of Antioch. Some of these companies have assets while 21 others seem to be mere shells. Though both groups operate under the parent company Catapult 22 Learning, counsel for Catapult Learning West alleges the groups are legally distinct. 23 In the course of plaintiff’s preliminary research, several signs pointed to Catapult 24 Learning as the owner or sponsor of Sierra School of Antioch: Sierra School of Antioch’s 25 website carried a large Catapult Learning logo, the website’s URL even included the name 26 Catapult Learning, and a California Secretary of State Statement of Information existed for 27 Catapult Learning West. So plaintiff sued Catapult Learning. But, by mistake, plaintiff named 1 Catapult Learning West (a subsidiary) instead of Catapult Learning (the parent company). 2 Considering the byzantine corporate structure, this mistake was understandable. 3 At the December 19 hearing, the court ordered Catapult to submit two charts illuminating 4 its corporate structure as of the date of the incident and as of December 31, 2019 (Dkt. Nos. 5 121, 125). Our court of appeals declined to intervene (Dkt. No. 136) and on January 6, Catapult 6 complied but sought to seal the two charts, this time claiming attorney-client privilege (Dkt. No. 7 134). 8 In no way are these charts attorney-client privileged. “The attorney-client privilege 9 protects confidential disclosures made by a client to an attorney in order to obtain legal 10 advice ... as well as an attorney’s advice in response to such disclosures.” United States v. 11 Chen, 99 F.3d 1495, 1501 (9th Cir. 1996). Catapult’s charts merely set forth a true 12 (supposedly) representation of Catapult’s corporate web. The charts neither ask for, nor 13 include, legal advice. There is a strong public policy in favor of openness in our court system. 14 See Kamakana vy. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1180 (9th Cir. 2006). These charts 3 15 cannot be concealed from the public. a 16 Even though our court of appeals has already ruled on this general issue, this order will 3 17 stay itself for 7 DAYS to give Catapult an opportunity to seek emergency appellate relief, if 18 Catapult wishes to seek it. Absent the intervention of our court of appeals, the two charts (Dkt. 19 No. 134-2) will be made public upon the expiration of this stay. 20 The motion to seal is DENIED. 21 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 24 Dated: January 21, 2020. 25 26 Al = | | □ LLIAM ALSUP 27 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 28