Cheteni v. Vella

Background

After a discovery-dispute conference, both sides filed discovery motions. The court decided the motions without oral argument and vacated the August 29, 2025 hearing. The fact-discovery deadline was October 17, 2025.

Cheteni asked the court to compel Vella and Lopes to provide complete responses to his document requests and to impose monetary and evidentiary sanctions. He argued that the defendants missed a July 3 production deadline and initially provided only a limited set of documents. The defendants submitted a declaration describing rolling productions that included more than 15,000 pages, as well as a privilege log provided on August 11.

Cheteni’s Motion to Compel

The court denied Cheteni’s motion. It found that the defendants’ response time was reasonable and that they had acted in good faith, given the 73 categories of documents requested. The court also noted that Cheteni did not identify a specific request for which the response was insufficient and had not been prejudiced because fact discovery would remain open until October 17, 2025.

Defendants’ Motion to Compel Discovery Responses

The court granted the defendants’ request to compel answers to their interrogatories and requests for production. Cheteni had made blanket objections that the interrogatories were overly broad and disproportionate, and had not provided answers to the interrogatories. The court found the interrogatories neither disproportionate nor overly broad because they sought information underlying Cheteni’s claims and documents supporting assertions in his amended complaint.

The court also required individual and complete responses to the document requests. It overruled objections to requests concerning documents identified in interrogatory responses, the VR School’s general ledgers, expenditure reports to the California Department of Education, staff time-and-effort records, student enrollment data, low-income student counts reported in funding applications, and the VR School’s enrollment and allowability policies. For the requests concerning documents identified in interrogatory answers, Cheteni was required to provide the documents after answering the interrogatories. The court found the requests relevant and proportionate, and it noted that a proposed protective order could address privacy concerns about student records.

Defendants’ Request to Determine the Adequacy of Admissions

The court ordered Cheteni to revise certain responses to requests for admission within ten days. The court found that responding that a document “speaks for itself” was improper. If a quoted or paraphrased document was accurate, Cheteni had to admit it; if it was inaccurate, he could deny it and explain why.

The court also addressed responses stating that Cheteni lacked access to original documents. For requests involving documents filed in the case, Cheteni had to make a reasonable inquiry before claiming insufficient knowledge. For some requests, the court concluded that Cheteni appeared not to have been involved with the original document or communication and did not need to amend those responses. For requests about two different low-income student enrollment figures in funding applications, Cheteni had to answer whether he provided the figures stated in the applications, rather than whether he provided inaccurate information.

Protective-Order Requests

The court granted the defendants’ request concerning purported December 2023 requests for admission. Cheteni could not treat those requests as admitted or continue asserting that they were admitted. The court cited a defense attorney’s sworn statement that she had not discussed discovery with Cheteni, the lack of documentary evidence showing that he emailed the requests to defendants, the fact that the parties had not yet held the required discovery conference at that time, and defendants’ offer to respond if Cheteni withdrew his position that the requests were already admitted.

The court also granted the request for a protective order concerning discovery served on non-parties. Although Vella and Lopes were sued in both their individual and official capacities, the court ruled that Cheteni could not serve interrogatories or requests for admission on employees who were not named parties. Defendants could ignore such discovery requests that Cheteni had already sent.

Disposition

The court denied Cheteni’s motion and granted the defendants’ motion. Cheteni was ordered to provide the required discovery material within ten days of the order. The court stated that it might consider sanctions in the future if he continued to obstruct the defendants’ reasonable discovery efforts.