Court Opinion

ID: 9385469
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-06 19:02:32.502947+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:01.999162
License: Public Domain

Filed 4/6/23 Doe v. Regents of the University of California CA2/4
             NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for
publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication
or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

         IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

                                  SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                                DIVISION FOUR

 JOHN DOE,                                                      B318015

           Plaintiff and Appellant,                             (Los Angeles County
                                                                 Super. Ct. No. 20STCP01526)
           v.

 THE REGENTS OF THE
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA,

           Defendant and Respondent.

         APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County,
Mitchell Beckloff, Judge. Affirmed.
         Revolve Law Group and Kimberly A. Wright for Plaintiff and
Appellant.
         Paul, Plevin, Sullivan & Connaughton, Sandra L. McDonough and
Joanne Alnajjar Buser for Defendant and Respondent.
                               INTRODUCTION
      John Doe was dismissed from the graduate dental program at the
University of California, Los Angeles (University) for accessing child
pornography on the University’s network. Doe sought review by writ of
administrative mandate. The superior court denied the writ petition and Doe
appealed from the judgment. Doe contends the University’s findings were not
supported by substantial evidence. We disagree and affirm the judgment.

                FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 1
      In 2017 and 2018, Doe was attending dental school at the University.
He planned to become a Doctor of Dental Surgery candidate in 2019.
      On January 1, 2018, the National Center for Missing and Exploited
Children (the Center) received a CyberTiplineReport (cyber report) from
Dropbox2 that child pornography had been uploaded to a Dropbox account.
The cyber report stated the following information. The email address
leosim302@gmail.com created the suspect Dropbox account with the
username “Leo Sim.” The suspect Dropbox account was accessed on August
20, 2017, at 2:04:49, 2:10:50, and 2:16:13 UTC (Coordinated Universal Time)
with the IP address 104.32.99.146, and again on November 23, 2017, at
7:00:17 UTC, with the IP address 164.67.234.100.
      On May 8, 2018, the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department (LASD)
obtained an arrest warrant for Doe based on an affidavit prepared by

1     Our summary of the factual and procedural history is drawn from the
administrative record, including testimony and exhibits presented at the
hearing before the University, discussed in detail post.

2    “Dropbox is a file hosting service . . . that offers cloud storage, file
synchronization, personal cloud, and client software.”

                                         2
Detective Gilbert Dominguez. Detective Dominguez attested he believed Doe
violated Penal Code section 311.11, subdivision (a), which proscribes
possession of child pornography.
      According to the statement of probable cause in the (now redacted)
arrest warrant, the Center received a cyber report from Dropbox that child
pornography was found on a Dropbox account. Detective Dominguez viewed
copies of some of the pornographic videos provided by Dropbox. The videos
depicted several children ranging in age from approximately 3 to 15 years old
in multiple sex acts, including intercourse, oral copulation, and sodomy, with
adults and other children. Dropbox provided information that the account
was created and accessed by a user named “Leo Sim” with the email address
leosim302@gmail.com. A search warrant served on Google for data
associated with the leosim302@gmail.com account revealed that the email
address was registered to “Leo Simmons.” The account contained emails and
messages to and from someone with the username “Leo Sim.” The recovery
email for leosim302@gmail.com was blankship17303@gmail.com. A search
warrant served on Google for the blankship17303@gmail.com account
revealed that the email address leosim302@gmail.com was created using the
blankship17303@gmail.com account on December 29, 2016, at 8:32 a.m.
Further, on April 2, 2017, an email titled “motherless” was sent from the
blankship17303@gmail.com account to the email address
juicykitty94@gmail.com. The email stated, “hey, saw your profile on
motherless . . . would love to see your hot body :).” The sender identified
himself as “Leo.” Detective Dominguez attested that “motherless” is a
common term employed by persons seeking to obtain child pornography.
There were multiple emails sent from the email address

                                       3
blankship17303@gmail.com in which the sender referred to himself as “Leo,”
and provided a picture of himself, which depicted Doe.
     One of the IP addresses used to access the suspect Dropbox account
was associated with the University; a search warrant served on Charter
Communications, Inc. revealed the other IP address used to access the
Dropbox account was registered to Doe’s parents’ residence in Diamond Bar,
California. Detective Dominguez subsequently spoke with Doe, who
confirmed he was a student at the University but denied any knowledge of
the email addresses leosim302@gmail.com or blankship17303@gmail.com.3
     On May 9, 2018, LASD arrested Doe at the dental school on the
University’s campus. On May 14, 2018, the University placed Doe on an
interim suspension and excluded him from campus pending a University
investigation into whether Doe’s conduct violated the University’s Student
Code of Conduct for computer misuse, and/or conduct that threatens the
health or safety of others. On July 26, 2018, Doe requested a hold on any
student misconduct proceedings because he believed information from his

3     According to a supplemental report dated February 11, 2019, Detective
Dominguez contacted the Center to clarify the incident dates on the cyber
report. Detective Dominguez initially believed the cyber report stated the
incident date was January 1, 2018, and he stated such on Doe’s arrest
warrant. However, the Center clarified that Dropbox submitted its cyber
report of child pornography to the Center on January 1, 2018, and that the
suspect Dropbox account was accessed on August 20, 2017, and again on
November 23, 2017, as indicated in the cyber report. Moreover, the Center
stated that it could only tell Detective Dominguez that the suspect Dropbox
account was accessed on August 20, 2017, and November 23, 2017, not “if an
upload in fact occurred on [those dates].” The supplemental report further
stated that the IP address on August 20, 2017 (104.32.99.146) returned to
Doe’s Diamond Bar residence, and the IP address on November 23, 2017
(164.67.234.100) returned to the University.

                                      4
active criminal case could be used to support his defense in the pending
student conduct case. The University granted Doe’s request and resumed
review of Doe’s student conduct in January 2019.
      The University’s IT department generated a document showing the IP
address on the UCLA network (164.67.234.100) with various time stamps
from November 22, 2017, at 17:39 UTC, through November 23, 2017, at 14:24
UTC. The document reflected that a unique “MAC address”4 associated with
Doe’s computer accessed this IP address at 6:49 UTC. The records also
demonstrated that Doe’s MAC address appeared consistently from November
22, 2017, at 17:39 UTC, through November 23, 2017, at 14:24 UTC.
      On July 24, 2018, the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office
filed a criminal complaint against Doe alleging possession and distribution of
child pornography (Pen. Code, §§ 311.1, subd. (a), 311.11, subd. (a).) On
March 1, 2019, the prosecution announced it was “unable to proceed” against
Doe. Therefore, the trial court dismissed the criminal charges pursuant to
Penal Code section 1382, for failure to timely prosecute. Because the charges
against Doe were dismissed, Doe’s bail bond was exonerated.
      On March 19, 2019, Doe requested to return to the University, given
the dismissal of the criminal charges. The University’s Associate Dean of
Students (Dean) asked for Doe’s responses to the claims in the LASD’s arrest
warrant. Doe denied any connection to the suspect Dropbox account.
Although the arrest warrant stated that Doe had denied any knowledge of

4     David Shaw, the University’s chief information security officer,
explained at the administrative hearing that “[a] MAC address is what
identifies that computer and there’s typically two different MAC addresses in
a computer, one for the wireless interface and one for the wired interface.”

                                       5
the blankship17303@gmail.com email address, Doe admitted to the Dean
that this was indeed his personal email address.
      On April 1, 2019, the Dean informed Doe that the matter would be
referred to the Student Conduct Committee Panel (Panel) for a hearing.
Matters are referred to the Panel for a hearing pursuant to the Student
Conduct Code “when the Student does not acknowledge engaging in behavior
prohibited by the Student Conduct Code, but the Dean concludes from the
available information that the Student Conduct Committee may find that it
is more likely than not that a violation of the [University’s] Student Conduct
Code has occurred.”
      On May 21, 2019, the University notified Doe that a hearing had been
set for November 12, 2019 to adjudicate the following alleged violations of the
Student Conduct Code: (1) section 102.05, computer misuse; (2) section
102.07, violations of University policy; and (3) section 102.08, conduct that
threatens health or safety. Doe received an advance copy of the evidence
packet to be provided to the Panel, including the Dean’s notes from
interviews with witnesses, IP address information, Doe’s redacted arrest
warrant, and information provided by Doe’s attorney as well as his forensic
expert, Jeffrey Fischbach. Prior to the hearing, Doe’s attorney also submitted
for the Panel a packet of information and exhibits in support of Doe.
      At the November 12, 2019 evidentiary hearing, Doe was present with
his former counsel, brother, and a campus advocate. At the outset, the Dean
presented an overview of the information she had gathered.
      David Shaw, the University’s chief information security officer, then
explained the University’s computer network and the process of identifying
an individual network user based on system time stamps, records of usage of
specific IP addresses, and MAC addresses associated with individual devices.

                                       6
Whenever a device connects to a network, the device asks for an IP address,
and the IP address routes the traffic across the network. A device will
maintain a lease of its specific IP address as long as it is connected to the
network. That device can be identified by the unique MAC address with
which it is associated, which in turn is associated with the network IP
address.
      Dropbox had provided an IP address from the University network that
was in communication with the suspect Dropbox account on November 23,
2017, at 7:00 UTC. The University’s IT department was able to trace the use
of that IP address on the University’s network on November 23, 2017, to a
particular MAC address. The network records reflected that the IP address
was issued to the MAC address associated with Doe’s device within the
timeframe of the login to the suspect Dropbox account from the same IP
address. When asked how the University could be certain it was Doe using
the IP address on campus and not another user, Shaw explained that the
leasing system ensures that two computers on the University’s network
cannot simultaneously use the same IP address.
      Detective Dominguez also addressed the Panel, explaining that the
case originated from a cyber report to the Center regarding child
pornography on a Dropbox account. He subsequently learned that a Dropbox
user had accessed that suspect account from two different locations (Diamond
Bar and the University campus). A search warrant served on internet service
providers yielded information that the Diamond Bar residence belonged to
Doe’s parents. Doe’s family informed Detective Dominguez that Doe was a
student at the University during the time period the suspect Dropbox account
was accessed on the University’s network.

                                        7
      Detective Dominguez also stated that the MAC address associated with
the computer seized from Doe matched the MAC address that the University
had indicated was associated with the IP address in communication with the
suspect Dropbox account. Detective Dominguez confirmed that the
University’s records demonstrated Doe had logged onto the campus network
at 6:49 UTC 5 on November 23, 2017, and the suspect Dropbox account was
accessed at 7:00 UTC on the same date and using the same IP address.
Dominguez also confirmed that Doe’s login to the University’s system was
“consistent with the time frame” in which the suspect Dropbox account was
accessed.
      Detective Dominguez further stated the email address
blankship17303@gmail.com was used as a recovery email for the
leosim302@gmail.com account. In addition, an email sent from the
blankship17303@gmail.com account included a photograph of Doe, and the
sender referred to himself as “Leo.” When asked about the website
“motherless.com” referenced in the arrest warrant, Detective Dominguez
stated it was advertised as an adult website, but “based on my training and
experience, it is most commonly used for the purposes of obtaining child
pornography.” He acknowledged there was no child pornography found on
any of Doe’s devices.
      Doe’s forensic expert, Jeffrey Fischbach, stated his opinion that the
evidence did not establish Doe had accessed the suspect Dropbox account. He
explained that Dropbox had not provided a MAC address that would directly
link Doe’s computer to the suspect Dropbox account access. He

5     Detective Dominguez stated the University records indicated that Doe
logged onto the campus network at 6:09 UTC, however, the records he was
referencing actually indicated a time stamp of 6:49 UTC.

                                       8
acknowledged, however, that the University had provided a spreadsheet of
MAC addresses that were connected to the University IP address during the
time frame in question and that the spreadsheet included the MAC address
associated with Doe’s device. He also stated that given the size of the data,
including pornographic videos, one would expect to find some evidence on a
device that had accessed it, but none of Doe’s devices searched by law
enforcement contained child pornography. Fischbach opined that whatever
device accessed the suspect Dropbox account was never located. Fischbach
acknowledged that Doe’s personal email address was set as the recovery
email address for leosim302@gmail.com. He also conceded that it was very
possible that Doe had access to both email addresses at issue,
blankship17303@gmail.com and leosim302@gmail.com. Fischbach opined
that Doe had been framed, however.
      Doe then made a statement of his own. He stated his criminal case had
been dismissed “because there was no evidence found.” He explained his
disagreements with Detective Dominguez’s assessment of the evidence. He
reiterated that law enforcement could not locate anything illegal on his
devices, and that there was no evidence connecting his MAC address to the
suspect Dropbox account. Doe confirmed that blankship17303@gmail.com
was his personal email address, and that it was used as the recovery email
for both the suspect Dropbox account and the leosim302@gmail.com account.
However, Doe alleged someone else must have used his personal email
address without his knowledge to set up both of these accounts. He
suggested that another UCLA student lived next door to his parents’ house
and that person could have logged into their IP address. However, when
asked if he done anything to probe the possibility that his neighbor was the
true culprit, Doe said he had not.

                                       9
      Doe admitted that he authored an email sent from
blankship17303@gmail.com, attaching his photograph and referring to
himself as “Leo” for the purpose of pursuing legal online sexual activities. He
stated that he used a fictitious name to obscure his true identity so as to
avoid harm to his reputation. Doe denied the term “motherless,” used in one
of his personal emails, was associated with child pornography.6
      The Panel issued a detailed report finding that Doe violated sections
102.05, 102.07, and 102.08 of the Student Conduct Code. The Panel
explained that, given that a “preponderance of the evidence” standard of
proof applied in hearings concerning violations of the Student Conduct Code,
while a higher “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard applied in criminal
proceedings, it could not merely rely on the dismissal of the criminal charges
to conclude Doe had not violated the Student Conduct Code.
      Parsing through the evidence, the Panel noted the name “Leo”
connected Doe to the leosim302@gmail.com account used to set up the suspect
Dropbox account. Doe had admitted identifying himself as “Leo” in emails
sent from his personal email address, blankship17303@gmail.com. The
leosim302@gmail.com address contained the name “Leo,” and it used Doe’s
personal email address as its recovery email. Further, Doe’s personal email
address was used as the recovery email for the suspect Dropbox account.
Given this evidence, the Panel did not find credible Doe’s denial of any
association with the leosim302@gmail.com account or the suspect Dropbox
account.

6     University Sergeant Jeff Chobanian also participated in the hearing,
but his testimony was brief and did not provide new or material information.

                                       10
      With respect to the two IP addresses used to access the same suspect
Dropbox account, the Panel did not find credible Doe’s claim that someone
else likely used his family’s internet in Diamond Bar to access it. The Panel
focused on the fact that the Dropbox account had been accessed on two
different dates from two different locations, both associated with Doe. The
Panel concluded Doe had not provided a reasonable alternative scenario to
explain this supposed coincidence.
      The Panel further stressed that during the time period the suspect
Dropbox account containing child pornography was accessed on November 23,
2017, Doe’s MAC address was connected on the University’s network to the
IP address used to access the Dropbox account. The Panel thus found it
“more likely than not” that Doe’s device accessed child pornography while
connected to the University network. The Panel found by a preponderance of
the evidence that Doe had violated Student Conduct Code sections 102.05,
102.07, and 102.08, and recommended dismissal from the University as the
appropriate sanction.
      On December 5, 2019, Doe appealed the Panel’s findings and his
dismissal to the University’s Vice Chancellor of Student Affairs. On January
10, 2020, the appeal was denied and the Panel’s recommendation upheld.
      On April 29, 2020, Doe sought a writ of administrative mandate (Code
Civ. Proc., § 1094.5) in the superior court.7 Following briefing and oral
argument, the court denied the writ petition on July 13, 2021, and entered

7     All further statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure
unless otherwise stated.
      Doe filed a petition for either a writ of administrative mandate
(§ 1094.5) or a traditional writ of mandate (§ 1085). However, Doe
exclusively sought relief under section 1094.5 in his briefing before the
superior court.

                                      11
judgment on November 9, 2021. On January 5, 2022, Doe filed a notice of
appeal from the judgment.

                                  DISCUSSION
   A. Administrative Mandate and Standard of Review
      The remedy of administrative mandamus applies “‘to the case of a
student who is subject to university disciplinary proceedings,’ when the
university ‘provides for an evidentiary hearing.’” (Teacher v. California
Western School of Law (2022) 77 Cal.App.5th 111, 127; Doe v. Claremont
McKenna College (2018) 25 Cal.App.5th 1055, 1065.) “The inquiry of the
reviewing court extends to questions about the [university’s] jurisdiction to
proceed, whether there was a fair trial, and ‘whether there was any
prejudicial abuse of discretion.’ (§ 1094.5, subd. (b).) An abuse of discretion
is established if the [university] has failed to proceed ‘in the manner required
by law, [or] the [university’s] order or decision is not supported by the
findings, or the findings are not supported by the evidence.’ (Ibid.) We
review the factual basis behind the [university’s] order or decision for
‘substantial evidence in . . . light of the whole record.’ (Id., subd. (c).)” (Akella
v. Regents of University of California (2021) 61 Cal.App.5th 801, 813–814,
(Akella))
      “‘In applying the standard, we focus on the decision of the [university]
rather than that of the trial court and “‘answer the same key question as the
trial court . . . whether the [university’s] findings were based on substantial
evidence.’”’ (Colony Cove Properties, LLC v. City of Carson (2013) 220
Cal.App.4th 840, 866.) This requires the reviewing court to consider all
relevant evidence in the administrative record and view that evidence in the
light most favorable to the [university’s] findings, drawing all inferences in

                                         12
support of those findings. (Do v. Regents of University of California (2013)
216 Cal.App.4th 1474, 1490 (Do).) The reviewing court does not substitute its
own findings and inferences for that of the [university]. (McAllister v.
California Coastal Com. (2008) 169 Cal.App.4th 912, 921 (McAllister).) ‘Only
if no reasonable person could reach the conclusion reached by the
[university], based on the entire record before it, will a court conclude that
the [university’s] findings are not supported by substantial evidence.’ (Do,
supra, at p. 1490; accord, McAllister, supra, at p. 921.)” (Akella, supra, 61
Cal.App.5th at p. 814.)

    B. Analysis
      Doe challenges the Panel’s decision to dismiss him from the University.
He contends substantial evidence does not support the findings that he was
connected to the email address leosim302@gmail.com used to create the
suspect Dropbox account and that he had accessed the account. Based on our
review of the entire administrative record, we conclude there was substantial
evidence that it was “more likely than not” that Doe accessed the suspect
Dropbox account containing child pornography.
      Here, it was undisputed that the suspect Dropbox account contained
child pornography. The leosim302@gmail.com account was used to create
and access the suspect Dropbox account. The recovery email for both the
leosim302@gmail.com account and the suspect Dropbox account was Doe’s
personal email address, blankship17303@gmail.com.8 The

8     In his opening brief, Doe argues that the only evidence that his
personal email address was used as the recovery email for the suspect
Dropbox account comes from Detective Dominguez’s “hearsay testimony.”
However, in his reply brief, Doe concedes “[t]he recovery email for the
Dropbox is Doe’s personal email address.” Indeed, Doe confirmed at the

                                       13
leosim302@gmail.com account was created using this personal email address.
Doe admittedly referred to himself as “Leo” and attached a picture of himself
while using his personal email address to correspond with other adults
regarding sexual activities.
      Moreover, Dropbox provided two IP addresses that had accessed the
suspect Dropbox account; IP address 104.32.99.146 on August 20, 2017, and
164.67.234.100 on November 23, 2017, specifically at 7:00:17 UTC. The
former IP address was associated with Doe’s parents’ residence in Diamond
Bar, and the latter IP address was associated with the University, where Doe
was a student (at the time).
      University records indicated that Doe’s unique MAC address was
connected to the IP address (164.67.234.100) associated with the University
at 6:49 UTC on November 23, 2017, which was consistent with the timeframe
of the login to the suspect Dropbox account (7:00 UTC on Nov. 23, 2017).
Although Doe points out that University IT records showed Doe’s device
session was interrupted and expired at 6:49 UTC on November 23, 2017 and
a new device session was not detected until 103 minutes later, at 8:32 UTC,
Shaw testified Doe’s lease on the IP address did not expire, nor was it
released, because he continued to use it beyond 7:00 UTC on November 23,
2017, through November 23, 2017 at 14:24 UTC. Further, Shaw testified
that an IP address is leased to only one device at a time—here Doe’s. Thus,
substantial evidence supports the determination that Doe was the individual
who accessed Dropbox at 7:00 UTC on November 23, 2017. Doe’s conclusory
assertion that the IP address associated with the University could have been

student conduct hearing that the suspect Dropbox account had been created
using his personal email address as the recovery email.

                                      14
used by another student to access the suspect Dropbox account with a
different device is directly refuted by the same evidence that only one
person—here Doe—could have been using the IP address during the
November 22-23 timeframe.9
      Doe’s reliance on the dismissal of criminal charges against him is
unavailing. First, Doe incorrectly assumes that the standards of proof in the
criminal and student conduct proceedings are the same, and that there was a
ruling on the merits in the criminal matter. As the Panel correctly noted, it
could not rely on the dismissal of criminal charges to find that Doe did not
violate the Student Conduct Code, given that a criminal proceeding applies
the higher beyond a reasonable doubt standard, while a student conduct
proceeding rests on the preponderance of the evidence standard.
Furthermore, the dismissal of the criminal charges was based on the failure
to timely prosecute the case, not a determination by the court that the
charges lacked merit. Contrary to Doe’s contention, he was not “exonerated”
by the court; rather, his bail bond was exonerated after the charges were
dismissed.
      We conclude substantial evidence supports the Panel’s finding that it
was “more likely than not” that Doe accessed the suspect Dropbox account
containing child pornography. Doe’s disagreement with the reasonable
inferences the Panel drew from the evidence is not sufficient to overturn his
dismissal from the University. (Doe v. Regents of California (2016) 5
Cal.App.5th 1055, 1074 [“We are required to accept all evidence which

9     Doe repeatedly asserts that child pornography was not found on his
devices. This argument ignores that a Dropbox user can store files in the
cloud, rather than storing them on a particular device.

                                      15
supports the successful party, disregard the contrary evidence, and draw all
reasonable inferences to uphold the verdict”].)

                                DISPOSITION
      The judgment is affirmed. The University is awarded its costs on
appeal.10
      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

                                           STONE, J.*
      We concur:

      CURREY, Acting P. J.

      COLLINS, J.

10     After the superior court entered judgment denying the writ petition,
the University filed a memorandum of costs. In a footnote in its appellate
brief, the University notes that the court has yet to rule on the University’s
motion and therefore requests that we award such costs in the first instance
on appeal. We decline to do so. The superior court retains jurisdiction to
award costs after an appeal is taken. (Korchemny v. Piterman (2021) 68
Cal.App.5th 1032, 1052; Carpenter v. Jack in the Box Corp. (2007) 151
Cal.App.4th 454, 461; Robertson v. Rodriguez (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 347,
360.)

*Judge of the Los Angeles County Superior Court, assigned by the Chief
 Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.

                                      16