Attorneys argue over evidence for Saugus High shooting trial 

Nearly five years after a 16-year-old Saugus High School student opened fire on his fellow students, killing three, including himself, and wounding three others on Nov. 14, 2019, a lawsuit brought forth by the parents of the students killed, Gracie Anne Muehlberger, 15, Dominic Michael Blackwell, 14, is almost ready for trial. 

The questions posed to 12 jurors next year will be over whether the William S. Hart Union High School District had liability in the teens’ deaths.  

“In more than 50 years of consideration regarding school safety standards for protection against intentional violence — a consistent public policy debate thread remains on how school districts should recognize potential warning signs for the acts of a disenfranchised student,” according to Judge Stephen Pfahler in his September 2023 summary judgment that cleared the lawsuit for trial. 

The plaintiffs’ attorneys claim there were numerous warning signs the district either ignored or failed to act on.  

The shooter, Nathaniel Berhow, was on “no one’s radar” in terms of being at risk for such behavior, Dominic Quiller, a partner in McCune & Harber representing the school district, said Friday. The district’s previous counsel argued in the September ruling it could not protect students against an incident it characterizes as unforeseeable. 

Once Pfahler ruled there was enough cause for a trial to determine any potential liability or damages, the case was reassigned to one of a handful of courthouses in Los Angeles County capable of handling a trial that could take a month or longer, due to the number of witnesses and the complexity of some of the issues. 

That brought the case to Judge David Cowan’s courtroom in Department 200 of the Beverly Hills Courthouse, where more than a dozen issues were discussed Friday morning, several of them being continued at Cowan’s request for more information on the issues. 

The trial is scheduled to begin in January barring any unforeseen changes and a hearing next month to resolve a few outstanding issues. 

District asks for 2 trials, limited surveillance footage 

One of the first motions discussed was the Hart district’s unsuccessful attempt at two separate trials — one to determine liability and a second to determine damages if liability is found. 

“The real issue here is whether bifurcation would ‘avoid prejudice’” as the Hart district contends, according to Cowan’s tentative ruling. “The court acknowledges that this is the kind of case where the decision as to liability is a very significant one and that this should be decided on its merits without other considerations.” 

However, “Ultimately, the court does not find that the ‘emotionally charged’ nature of damages here present exceptional circumstances that warrant deviating from normal trial procedure, including for other wrongful death cases,” according to Cowan’s ruling. 

One of the most controversial topics of the day involved the discussion of the video of the shooting itself, which was captured on school-security cameras.  

The defense wants to show about 35 seconds of the footage, up to the firing of the last shot, which it acknowledges is highly charged and emotional, but also critical for helping the defense identify jurors who can handle the evidence of the trial, which will include the disturbing footage. 

The plaintiffs argued that if the footage is shown, it should be in its entirety.  

“The plaintiff’s contention is to show the supervision or lack of supervision, to show that there were no teachers or people in the area supervising the children,” said Gary Dordick, an attorney for the families. “We wanted to stop when the first teacher or supervisory person arrives on the scene, which is about three minutes or three and a half minutes later. We believe it’s relevant for the jury to see how long, the fact that they weren’t anywhere in the area.” 

The defense argued that there was class in session at the time of the shooting and the teachers were following protocol. 

“So to say that there was no one around until a few minutes later, people ran and dispersed because it was a shooting,” Quiller said. “We have a training called, ‘Run. Hide. Fight,’ which their expert says is no good, but that’s what we had.” 

Cowan viewed the footage on the bench, giving the slightest wince at one point and shaking his head at the end of it, before declaring that he was inclined to allow all the footage, due to its “probative value.” 

Plaintiffs try to focus liability on district 

The plaintiffs sought to exclude reference to a separate legal action by the Muehlberger family, who joined California in a lawsuit against the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms over “ghost gun” regulations. 

The plaintiffs argued in their motion that such an action is unrelated to their case and could prejudice jurors who have strong opposition to gun-control laws. 

The district argued the manufacturer of the ghost gun used, 1911Builders.com, is partly responsible for what happened and that the jury should be asked on the verdict form “to apportion liability among all responsible persons, including the manufacturer.”  

Whether Berhow’s mother, Mami Matsuura-Berhow, also has liability, is expected to be part of the discussion. The L.A. County District Attorney’s Office declined to file a criminal case against her that was presented by L.A. County Sheriff’s Department homicide detectives. 

Quiller argued that both the gun manufacturer and the mother have liability, with statements made in court Friday referencing at least eight guns found in the 16-year-old shooter’s home. 

Cowan asked both sides why the gun manufacturer’s potential liability was not a part of the evidence in discovery if there was a potential for the manufacturer to be on the liability form. 

The plaintiffs’ counsel didn’t see it as relevant, whereas Quiller said he intended to submit an amended list of witnesses after his firm took on the case. No reason was given in court for why the district changed counsel nearly two years ago. 

Both sides were asked to submit additional evidence by Oct. 4. Cowan planned to hear arguments and make his rulings at an Oct. 25 hearing. 

The judge also granted a motion by the plaintiffs to prevent reference to money they received from community members or local businesses after the incident, including contributions to a GoFundMe, which the district did not oppose. The district did reserve its legal right to file a motion post-verdict for collateral source payments as a credit against any liability. 

Legal counsel for the district confirmed Friday its insurance liability policy covered the district for up to $50 million. 

District seeks to exclude records, testimony 

One of the longer arguments Friday involved the district’s efforts to exclude evidence that the Department of Child and Family Services requested Nathaniel Berhow’s records while he was an eighth-grader at Arroyo Seco Junior High School, in response to problems at home with his father, Mark Berhow, who later died of a heart attack two years before the shooting.  

“This is a fax document sent in the school that we contend puts them on notice of trouble in the household,” said Dordick. 

Quiller argued that it was only a request for a transcript by the agency, but Cowan saw no reason why it couldn’t be discussed as evidence during the trial next year. 

The plaintiffs also sought and obtained the release of dozens of students’ disciplinary records in order to have experts evaluate how the district handled previous situations in their efforts to prove a pattern of fault by the district.  

The district argued Friday that the experts being called by the plaintiffs lacked school experience and therefore weren’t qualified to speak to the handling of incidents. 

Quiller also argued they weren’t relevant.  

“As to Nathan, it’s undisputed that there was no record of him at school having any disciplinary or mental health assessments. So the records as to other kids are not relevant to that issue,” Quiller said.  

The plaintiffs argued the school records were part of their effort to prove there were systemic problems in the district.  

The records addressed “the district’s entire supervisory practice of students … to the extent that there are district policies about how the district identifies behaviors of concerns, documents those behaviors, and makes those records available to school staff, to teachers, and does follow up, that’s directly relevant to its general pattern of supervision,” said Andrew Britton, arguing for the plaintiffs. 

Cowan said ultimately the follow-up hearing next month would help determine what would be relevant to the case and to what extent the district’s concerns can be addressed without an overbroad exclusion of evidence. 

LASD, school resource officers 

As far as any references to the Homicide Bureau’s investigation of the shooting by the Sheriff’s Department, both sides agreed the evidence would be discussed and argued on a case-by-case basis during trial. Cowan asked for a statement of any stipulations agreed upon. 

The judge held over the district’s motion to exclude testimony from the families regarding the plaintiffs’ “grief, sorrow and mental suffering” for the next hearing. 

Both sides agreed to jury instructions regarding how such testimony could be considered.  

The district also tried to exclude any testimony concerning school resource officers.  

By state law, the district is not required to have police officers, which is why a lack of law enforcement officers on campus cannot be something for which the district is held liable. 

The defense argued that, given that’s the law, the plaintiffs’ plan to present testimony by its security experts on any alleged problems would be prejudicial.  

“SROs have a security function,” according to Cowan’s tentative ruling. “District argues that the lack of police presence is a political and budgetary issue that district cannot be held responsible for making.” 

The plaintiffs argued that the motion is a “backhanded means of avoiding testimony related to the SRO’s monitoring of a ‘text-a-tip’ line at the school to facilitate reports of certain behavior or activity — that may be relevant here,” Cowan noted in his tentative ruling. Questions were raised during the discovery process for evidence as to whether there was an issue with the tip line, which is expected to be argued at trial. 

“This is not an issue about whether they should have it, but where were they?” Cowan asked Quiller. 

Quiller replied the district’s contract with the Sheriff’s Department for school resource deputies has them on an eight-campus rotation, and the deputy assigned to the campus was not scheduled to be there at the time of the shooting. 

Ultimately, Cowan asked for more information on why the school resource officer testimony was relevant before making a ruling on any exclusions. 

Other pending issues 

Cowan also asked for more evidence from the Hart district on why it was seeking to exclude testimony from the plaintiffs’ security expert.  

Both sides also are expected to make arguments on Oct. 25 on whether the trial can be filmed. The plaintiffs argued that it’s a matter of public record, while the counsel for the Hart district plans to argue against allowing cameras in the courtroom, per Quiller. 

“As a general proposition, the rule is the courts are public forums, and that unless there’s a compelling reason not to, they are generally allowed,” said Dordick. 

Both sides also are expected to present their respective versions of the jury questionnaire for Cowan’s consideration next month.