Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-01145/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-01145-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

McCormick, Barstow, Sheppard,

Wayte & Carruth LLP

Mart B. Oller IV, #149186

7647 North Fresno Street

Fresno, California 93720

Telephone: (559) 433-1300

Facsimile: (559) 433-2300

Attorneys for COUNTY OF FRESNO

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, FRESNO DIVISION

VERONICA HERNANDEZ; R.H., a minor, 

by and through her Guardian ad Litem, 

VERONICA HERNANDEZ; and M.H. a 

minor, by and through her Guardian ad Litem, 

VERONICA HERNANDEZ,

Plaintiffs,

v.

COUNTY OF FRESNO, a public entity; 

PROTEUS, INC., a corporation; DOE 

FRESNO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF 

SOCIAL SERVICES SOCIAL WORKER, an 

individual; DOE FRESNO COUNTY 

DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES 

SUPERVISOR, an individual; and DOES 1-

40, inclusive,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:22-cv-01145-ADA-EPG

STIPULATION AND ORDER 

PERMITTING ATTORNEYS FOR 

DEFENDANTS AND PLAINTIFFS TO 

REVIEW AND ACCESS JUVENILE 

RECORDS PERTAINING TO 

PLAINTIFFS, SUBJECT TO 

STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER; 

FURTHER STIPULATION AND ORDER 

FOR EXTENSION OF TIME FOR 

DEFENDANTS TO RESPOND TO 

COMPLAINT UNTIL AFTER 

DOCUMENTS ARE PRODUCED

(ECF Nos. 13, 14)

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between the Plaintiffs and 

Defendant COUNTY OF FRESNO (“County”), by and through their respective counsel, as follows:

RECITALS:

1. Plaintiffs seek damages in this case from Defendants for alleged violation of federal 

civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and violation of California law on allegations of sexual battery

and other abuse committed against Plaintiffs, as minors at the times of the assaults. See Complaint 

(Doc. 1) ¶¶ 3-7.

2. The Complaint alleges Plaintiffs, at the time of the incidents upon which their claims 

are based, were declared dependents of the Fresno County Juvenile Court, and at all times of the 

Case 1:22-cv-01145-KES-EPG Document 15 Filed 11/30/22 Page 1 of 14
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

incidents sued upon were “foster children” as defined by the California Welfare & Institutions Code, 

and as such were placed in the custody, supervision, care and control of Defendant County of Fresno; 

in that capacity they were placed by Defendant Proteus, Inc., a private entity licensed as a foster 

family agency that contracted with the County for placement services (¶ 9), into a foster home in 

the care and custody of certain foster parents, Eli and Martha Mendoza. Complaint ¶¶ 14-15.

Plaintiffs allege that while in the foster care of the Mendozas, Plaintiffs were sexually assaulted. 

Id. ¶¶ 17-25. In the Complaint, Plaintiffs allege five causes of action seeking to hold the County 

and Proteus liable for damages the suffered in these assaults.1 Id. ¶¶ 31-79.

3. Plaintiffs seek money damages from all Defendants for harms caused by these 

alleged assaults. The Complaint includes a Monell claim against the County, as well as state-law 

claims.

4. The claims in this action directly implicate and are grounded in substantial part upon 

policies and actions or inactions of the County in the care and supervision of Plaintiffs as minors.

5. Under California law, a “juvenile case file” of government agencies and the courts

pertaining to the care and supervision of juveniles, including those in foster care, is confidential and 

may be inspected only by statutorily designated persons and governmental entities. Cal. Welf. & 

Inst. Code § 827 et seq.

6. Neither the attorneys for the Plaintiffs nor the County are statutorily authorized to 

receive and review the juvenile case file pertaining to the minor Plaintiffs without an order of the 

juvenile court, or of this Court.

7. California law defines “juvenile case file” to mean, for purposes of the confidentiality 

provision, “...a petition filed in a juvenile court proceeding, reports of the probation officer, and all 

other documents filed in that case or made available to the probation officer in making the probation 

officer's report, or to the judge, referee, or other hearing officer, and thereafter retained by the 

probation officer, judge, referee, or other hearing officer.” Cal. Welf & Inst. Code § 827(e). 

8. California law requires a person who is seeking access to a juvenile case file that is 

1 Nothing in this Stipulation amends, revises, or replaces the allegations of the Complaint. The 

summary in the Recitals in this Stipulation is intended only for showing the compelling basis for the 

County’s need for access to the relevant files. Further, nothing herein waives any defenses or 

motions Defendants may have in response to the Complaint or any claim(s) made in it.

Case 1:22-cv-01145-KES-EPG Document 15 Filed 11/30/22 Page 2 of 14
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

privileged or confidential, who is not entitled to access the record by statute, to petition the juvenile 

court for access. Cal. Welf & Inst. Code § 827(a)(2). Under California case law, when considering 

such a petition for access, the juvenile court “must balance the interests of the minor and those of 

the public, and permit disclosure only where not inconsistent with the best interests of the juvenile 

whose file is sought.” See, e.g., In re Elijah S., 125 Cal.App.4th 1552, 1542 (2005). 

9. Federal courts are not bound by Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 827 in cases litigated in 

their courts. Fox v. County of Tulare, 2013 WL 120862697, at * 3 (E.D. Cal. 2013) (“Federal courts 

are not bound by state law and may authorize these disclosures” under § 827). The courts, however, 

respect state law and will apply a balancing process to determine if the interests in disclosure 

outweigh California public policy and the minor’s interest in preserving confidentiality. Id.; 

Maldonado v. Sec’y of Cal. Dept. of Corrections and Rehab., 2007 WL 4249811, at *5 (E.D. Cal. 

2007). The court examines five factors: “(1) the probable encroachment of the individual's privacy 

right if the contested action is allowed to proceed, and the magnitude of that encroachment; (2) 

whether the encroachment of the privacy right would impact an area that has traditionally been off 

limits for most regulation [i.e., an area where privacy concerns have traditionally been respected]; 

(3) whether the desired information is available from other sources with less encroachment of the 

privacy right; (4) the extent to which the exercise of the individual's privacy rights impinge on the 

rights of others; and (5) whether the interests of society at large encourage a need for the proposed 

encroachment.” Fox, supra, at * 3, quoting Pagano v. Oroville Hosp., 145 F.R.D. 683, 698-99 (E.D. 

Cal. 1993). 

10. The above standard in federal court cases applies where, as here, the basis for federal 

jurisdiction is a claim for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Fox, supra; Maldonado, supra.

11. Very recently, the Ninth Circuit held that minors have no federal constitutional 

privacy rights in juvenile case files under Welf. & Inst. Code § 827, and that access to those files in 

defending litigation was not a violation of privacy rights under federal or California law. A.C. v. 

Cortez, 34 F.4th 783, 786-88 (9th Cir. 2022). In A.C.. the minor plaintiffs sued the County of San 

Diego alleging violation of their Fourth Amendment rights by interviewing them without a court 

order or parental consent. In defense of that suit, San Diego County Counsel accessed plaintiffs’ 

juvenile court records without authorization from the juvenile court. Plaintiffs later sued the County

Case 1:22-cv-01145-KES-EPG Document 15 Filed 11/30/22 Page 3 of 14
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

under § 1983, alleging that accessing their juvenile files in the first case violated § 827 and hence 

violated their constitutional rights of privacy. The district court dismissed the suit for failure to 

allege violation of a constitutional right, holding that access to the juvenile files was justified by the 

need for the information in defending the suit which outweighed any privacy interest the plaintiffs 

may have had. The Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding that § 827 establishes no federal constitutional

right of privacy in juvenile case files. Id. at 786-87. The Court further held that any release of 

confidential juvenile files under California law must meet a five-factor balancing test examining: 

“(1) the type of information requested, (2) the potential for harm in any subsequent non-consensual 

disclosure, (3) the adequacy of safeguards to prevent unauthorized disclosure, (4) the degree of need 

for access, and (5) whether there is an express statutory mandate, articulated public policy, or other 

recognizable public interest militating toward access.” Id. at 787-88, quoting Seaton v. Mayberg,

610 F.3d 530, 539 (9th Cir. 2010). Applying this standard, the court agreed with the district court 

that access to the files was proper under the circumstances, and thus the § 1983 claim was properly 

dismissed without leave to amend. Id. at 788-89. 

12. In A.C., the Ninth Circuit found the fourth factor, the degree of need for access, was 

“most crucial in this case, because that need is high.” Id. at 788. The Court continued: “The 

County’s attorneys have a duty to represent their client, and they concluded that adequate 

representation required their reviewing the files. This situation is analogous to the concept of 

litigation waiver in other areas of the law: where a Plaintiff puts a particular subject at issue, such 

that lawyers and courts will need to examine records to investigate the claim, Plaintiffs’ privacy 

rights and expectations may be diminished or extinguished.” Id. 

 13. Here, the County has an identical, if not greater, need for access to the files. Unlike 

A.C., the present suit directly claims damages from actions that are described and documented 

exclusively in the juvenile case files relating to their foster care and placement. The County cannot 

investigate the allegations of this case and properly and informatively prepare a defense without 

access to the Plaintiffs’ juvenile case files. The County’s counsel, both the County Counsel and 

outside counsel, are not statutorily authorized to access the Plaintiffs’ files and thus require Court 

authorization.

14. Further, counsel for the Plaintiffs in the present action is not statutorily authorized to 

Case 1:22-cv-01145-KES-EPG Document 15 Filed 11/30/22 Page 4 of 14
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5

access the juvenile case files. Plaintiffs’ counsel likewise needs access to those files to further 

investigate and litigate the legal claims alleged in the Complaint. The files are crucial, and indeed 

indispensable, to both sides’ needs to litigate and discover this case consistent with the objectives 

and processes of the federal rules.

15. Further, adequate safeguards may be put in place in this action to limit the use of the 

information derived from the juvenile case files to proper purposes in this litigation. The parties 

agree that a stipulated protective order is appropriate for this purpose. The parties will prepare and 

submit a joint proposed protective order to the Court upon approval of the instant stipulation and 

entry of an order on it.

16. The parties anticipate that the processes for obtaining and reviewing the files 

described above will take more time than is currently available for the County to file a response to 

the Complaint, which response is currently due on or before November 29, 2022. The parties, 

accordingly, stipulate and request the Court order that the records identified in Exhibit “A’ attached 

hereto ordered to be produced within 14 days of service of the Order and that County may have an 

extension of time until 21 days after the expiration of the 14 day service period of the Order, within 

which to file a pleading or motion(s) under Rule 12 or any other applicable provision of the federal 

rules. In order to protect the confidentiality of the parties, the stipulation and Order are presented 

without the specific names of the minors and Defendant’s counsel shall fill in the names of the 

minors and other identifying information on Exhibit “A” attached to the Order at the time the Order 

is served.

Dated: November 28, 2022 McCORMICK, BARSTOW, SHEPPARD,

WAYTE & CARRUTH LLP

By: /s/ Mart B. Oller, IV

Mart B. Oller, IV

Attorney for Defendant COUNTY OF FRESNO

Case 1:22-cv-01145-KES-EPG Document 15 Filed 11/30/22 Page 5 of 14
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

6

Dated: November 28, 2022 GREENBERG GROSS, LLP

By: /s/ Daniel S. Cha

Daniel S. Cha

Attorney for Plaintiffs VERONICA HERNANDEZ; 

R.H., a minor, by and through her Guardian ad 

Litem, VERONICA HERNANDEZ; and M.H. a 

minor, by and through her Guardian ad Litem, 

VERONICA HERNANDEZ

Case 1:22-cv-01145-KES-EPG Document 15 Filed 11/30/22 Page 6 of 14
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

7

ORDER

The day after the above stipulation (ECF No. 13) was filed by Plaintiffs and Defendant 

County of Fresno, the parties filed a stipulation (ECF No. 14) allowing Defendant Proteus, Inc. to 

join in the stipulation and to have an extension of time to respond to the complaint until after the 

relevant documents are produced. Based on the parties’ stipulations (ECF Nos. 13, 14), IT IS 

ORDERED as follows:

1. The Court finds there is a critical need for the attorneys for the parties to this action 

to receive and review juvenile case files relating to the minor Plaintiffs (including Plaintiff 

Hernandez when she was a minor) and that adequate and effective safeguards, in the form of a 

Protective Order, may be put in place to limit disclosure and use of the information from those 

files outside this litigation. Further, the Court finds that appropriate sealing orders may be entered 

to limit public access to specific documents and information, upon application of any party to this 

action or any third-party withstanding to make such a request for sealing. See Local Rules 141, 

141.1. 

2. Counsel for the Plaintiffs and Defendants may access, receive and retain copies of 

documents located in juvenile case files pertaining to the Plaintiffs in the present case, relating to 

facts and circumstances of their care in the custody of the foster parents identified in the 

Complaint, Eli and Martha Mendoza, and relating to any investigation, supervision, monitoring, 

visitation, actions, inactions, or follow-up relating to that care, without intending any limitation on 

the scope of this order.

3. The specifics of types of information to which this Order pertains, and persons or 

agencies who may have possession of such files and documents, is set forth in Exhibit “A” hereto 

and is incorporated herein by this reference. Said agencies/entities include CASA, the Fresno 

County Juvenile Court, and Fresno County Department of Children and Family Services, and said 

agencies/entities shall produce within 14 days of service of this Order all responsive records 

without redaction to counsel for Plaintiffs, Greenberg Gross LLP, Daniel Cha, 650 Town Center 

Drive, Suite 1700, Costa Mesa, CA 92626; Counsel for Defendant County of Fresno, McCormick 

Barstow, Mart Oller, 7647 North Fresno Street, Fresno, California 93720; and Counsel for 

Defendant Proteus, Inc., Hinshaw & Culbertson, LLP, Bradley Zamczyk and Carla

Case 1:22-cv-01145-KES-EPG Document 15 Filed 11/30/22 Page 7 of 14
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

8

Meninsky, 50 California Street, Suite 2900, San Francisco, CA 94111.

4. To the extent the attorneys for the Defendants and Plaintiffs may obtain 

authorization from the subject foster-care agencies consistent with this Order without subpoenas, 

the attorney for the Defendants and Plaintiffs are authorized by this Order to obtain that access and 

receive copies of those files without further Order from this Court.

5. To the extent third-party subpoenas are required to obtain and access the documents 

described in this order, those subpoenas are supported by good case, so long as they are consistent 

with the scope of documents described in this Order, and require no further pre-approval from this 

Court, subject to any objections or motions made by the third-party recipients of such subpoenas. 

4. Specific disputes or questions about the scope and applicability of this Order may 

be raised with the Magistrate Judge by notice to the court clerk for the Magistrate Judge, who will 

determine an expeditious way to resolve the dispute or respond to the question.

5. Any party who violates the terms of this Order is subject to Court sanctions. 

6. Good cause appearing, the Defendants shall have an extension of time to and 

including 21 days after the expiration of the 14-day service period of the Order for production of 

documents, within which to file a pleading or motion(s) under Rule 12 or any other applicable 

provision of the Federal rules. Defendants’ counsel shall fill in the names of the minors and other 

identifying information on Exhibit “A” attached to the Order at the time the Order is served.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 30, 2022 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:22-cv-01145-KES-EPG Document 15 Filed 11/30/22 Page 8 of 14
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

9

EXHIBIT A TO ORDER

Child's Name: Date of Birth: --/--/2005

Child’s Name: Date of Birth: --/--/2004

Child’s Name: Veronica Hernandez Date of Birth: --/--/2022

Juvenile Case No.: ` Civil Case No.: 1:22-CV-01145 ADA EPG

Each of the individuals listed above are siblings. 

Additional Identifying Information for each Child

1. Name of Child’s Biological Mother: 

2. Child’s Biological Mother’s Date of Birth: 

3. Name of Child’s Biological Father: 

4. Child’s Biological Father’s Date of Birth: 

5. Year each Child Entered Foster Care: 

Counsel for the County of Fresno, Mart B. Oller, IV, and counsel for Plaintiffs, Daniel Cha, 

are requesting the inspection, release, and copying of the juvenile case file as defined by California 

Rules of Court, rule 5.552 and Welfare and Institutions Code§ 827. County of Fresno is a defendant 

in the underlying civil action filed by Veronica Hernandez, individually and on behalf of 

____________ and ________________ in United States Eastern District Court Case No. 1:22-CV01145 ADA EPG, and the information contained in the juvenile case file is both highly relevant and 

necessary for the assessment and defense of the underlying civil action. All the information and 

evidence necessary to investigate and defend against the claims are contained in the records and 

documents described in the petition. 

All documents filed in the Juvenile Court case; reports to the court by social workers of 

Child Welfare Services programs and court appointed special advocates; documents made available 

to social workers of Child Welfare Services programs, and court-appointed special advocates 

(CASA) in preparation of reports to the court; documents relating to the child concerning whom a 

petition has been filed in Juvenile Court, which are maintained in the office files of social workers 

of Child Welfare Services programs, and court appointed special advocates; transcripts, records or 

reports relating to matters prepared or released by the court or Child Welfare Services program; 

documents, video or audio tapes, photographs and exhibits admitted into evidence at Juvenile Court 

hearings. In addition to the above, petitioner requests the release of any and all documents, reports, 

Case 1:22-cv-01145-KES-EPG Document 15 Filed 11/30/22 Page 9 of 14
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

10

photographs, video or audio tapes or records pertaining to the child in the possession and control of 

Fresno County Department of Children & Family Services, including but not limited to the 

following: All records from:

I. Department of Children and Family Services Records (DCFS)

A. ADDITIONAL SERVICES DOCUMENTATION FOLDER

[All Documents Not Appropriate for Filing in Any Other Folder]

1. Case Transfer Sheets

B. CASE ACTIVITY RECORDING FOLDER

1. Emergency Response Referral

2. Detention Card (Copy)

3. Risk Assessment Guide

4. Risk Assessment Guide (Infants Prenatally Exposed to Drugs)

5. Risk Assessment Guide (Prenatally Drug Exposed Infants Released to 

 Relatives)

6. Assessment Referral (TILP)

7. ER: Initial Response (Case Termination)

8. ER: Assessment/Service Plan

9. FM, FR, PP: Assessment

10. FM & FR: Re-assessment

11. FM & FR: Service Plan

12. PP: Assessment

13. PP: Re-assessment

14. PP: Service Plan

15. Application for Petition (when used as initial assessment)

16. Permanency Planning/Adoption Assessment

17. Suspect Child Abuse Report (PC )

18. Child Abuse Investigation Report

19. Reports to/from Law Enforcement

20. Adoption Assessment (Community)

Case 1:22-cv-01145-KES-EPG Document 15 Filed 11/30/22 Page 10 of 14
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

11

21. Exception for Visitation

22. Case Activity Log

23. Service Activity Visit Log

24. Post-Placement Requirement Reduction Request

25. Face-to-Face Contact Exceptions

C. CIS DOCUMENTS FOLDER

1. CIS Fact Sheet

2. CIS Work Sheet

3. CIS Work Sheet (Supplement)

4. Child Information Summary (Original)

5. Confirmation Documents (Person)

6. Emergency Response Referral

D. COURT DOCUMENTS FOLDER

1. All narrative and Court Reports

2. All Notices, Subpoenas, Citations

3. In/Out (Affidavit for Attendance)

4. All Minute Orders

E. FCIS FOLDER [Foster Child’s Data Record and AFDC-FC Certification]

1. DCS Certified License Pending

2. Child’s Placement Needs Assessment Requiring DCS Certified License

 Pending

3. Home Assessment for DCS Certified License Pending

4. Maclaren Intake/Admissions

5. Child Placement Needs Assessment

6. Foster Child’s Needs Assessment/Service Plan

7. ICPC (Fact Sheet)

8. Descriptive Information Sheet

9. Placement Request

10. Child in Placement

Case 1:22-cv-01145-KES-EPG Document 15 Filed 11/30/22 Page 11 of 14
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

12

11. Agency/Relative Placement Agreement

12. Placement Termination

13. Notice of Intent to Terminate Placement

14. PP Transfer Notice to Caregiver

15. Notification of Placement of Minor in FC

16. Evaluation of FH [Foster Home]/GH [Group Home]

17. Application and Statement of Facts for Child (Foster Care)

18. Request for MEDs ID

19. MEDs (Add Child)

20. MEDs (Change/Modified Data)

21. Agency/Group Home Agreement

22. Placement Agreement (Parent-Agency)

23. Agency/Foster Parent Agreement

24. Letters of Legal Guardianship

25. Agency Foster Home Agreement [CDA 46]

26. Notification of Child’s Adaptability

27. CII Clearance Request (F/P)

28. Placement History

29. Re-certification

F. MEDICAL RECORDS FOLDER

G. PSYCHOLOGICAL/MEDICAL/DENTAL/SCHOOL REPORTS FOLDER

[Accident, Injury, or Death Reporting, Medical Consent/Authorizations,

Psychological/Medical/Dental/School/Regional Center Reports]

1. CHDP Documentation Check List

2. Medical Consent (Court Order)

3. Hospital Medical Summary

4. Foster Child Background Medical

5. Initial Examination Form

6. Health Care Visit Log

Case 1:22-cv-01145-KES-EPG Document 15 Filed 11/30/22 Page 12 of 14
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

13

7. Report on Death, Injury, Mistreatment or Illness (CSW)

8. Report on Death, Injury, Mistreatment or Illness (Foster Parent)

9. General Medical Consent

10. Authorization for Administration of Psychotropic Medication

11. Birth Certificates (Child)

12. Birth Records (Child)

13. All Group Home Quarterly Reports

14. All Medical/Psychological/Dental Reports

15. All Other School Reports (I.E.P., Grade Reports, School Progress Reports,

 etc.)

16. Fact Sheets (Incident Reports)

17. ICPC/ICT Supervisory Reports

18. Regional Center Reports

19. Report Cards

20. Psychological/Medical History [Adoptions]

21. Child Medical Exam [Adoptions]

22. Child’s Progress Report [Adoptions]

H. SEARCH FOLDER

[All Individual Due Diligence Folders Containing Correspondence, Declaration of

Due Diligence, Publication Packet]

I. SERVICES ELIGIBILITY FOLDER (YELLOW)

[AFDC-FC Eligibility, Applications for Services and Assistance, Trust Account

Information, Service-Funded Activities, Ear]

1. AFDC-FC Funeral Cost Program Affidavits

2. Case Action Gram

J. OUT-OF-HOME CARE EVALUATION UNIT RECORDS [FOSTER CARE

DIVISION (DCS)]

K. COMMUNITY CARE LICENSING [PUBLIC AND CONFIDENTIAL 

RECORDS] (DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES)

Case 1:22-cv-01145-KES-EPG Document 15 Filed 11/30/22 Page 13 of 14
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

14

L. JUVENILE COURT FILE

M. ANY OTHER JUVENILE COURT RECORD (AS DEFINED UNDER WELFARE

AND INSTITUTIONS CODE SECTION 827) NOT DESCRIBED ABOVE THAT

IS RELEVANT TO THE ISSUES OF THIS CASE.

Case 1:22-cv-01145-KES-EPG Document 15 Filed 11/30/22 Page 14 of 14