On June 19, 2013, the plaintiff, a 16-year-old boy, was punched by another ward while housed at the Dorothy Kirby Center, in Commerce, following a violation of probation. The Dorothy Kirby Center is a secure, co-educational, juvenile detention facility that is maintained by the county of Los Angeles and is a collaboration between the County of Los Angeles Department of Mental Health and the Probation Department. The center houses a variety of minors, including those with behavior problems or certain mental health issues, and it provides treatment to wards in the form of dialectical behavior therapy, individual therapy, and family therapy. It also assigned wards to certain units — there are a total of 10 units with 10 minors in each one — in accordance with the policies and procedures set forth in its “Referral & Intake Process” manual. The manual outlined the center’s admission criteria, which included an assessment of the ward’s mental condition and psychosocial history by a psychologist with the Department of Mental Health. As to specific guidelines regarding what cottage or unit a ward should be placed, a screening committee looked at factors, such as prior detention history, whether the minor is “medically fragile,” emotional stability, gang involvement, medical/mental health considerations, and current criminal charges. At the time of his probation violation, the plaintiff was a teenager who had been diagnosed with bipolar disorder since he was 13 or 14 years old. His identified treatment needs and outcome goals included anger management, depression, substance abuse, and family functioning. As a result, the teenager was placed in a particular section of the Dorothy Kirby Center called the “Turquoise” unit. On June 19, 2013, the plaintiff was sucker punched in the head by another ward at the center. Prior to the incident, the plaintiff never apprised the center’s staff of any prior altercations or perceived threats from the other ward, who was 15 years old. However, the plaintiff sustained to his head as a result of the incident. Maria Penaloza, acting as the teenage plaintiff’s guardian ad litem, sued the county of Los Angeles; the Los Angeles County probation chief at the time, Jerry Powers; and a probation officer for the county who monitored the Turquoise unit, where the plaintiff was placed, Booker Waugh; and a probation officer for the county who monitored the “Garnet” unit, where the other teenage ward was placed, Les Smith. Penaloza, on behalf of the plaintiff, alleged that the defendants’ actions constituted violations of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, federal civil rights by a public entity, the Americans with Disabilities Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and California Government Code § 11135. She also alleged that the defendants’ actions constituted negligence under California Government Code § 815.2(a) and alleged a Monell claim for municipal liability. Defense counsel moved for summary judgment, and it was granted as to most of the plaintiff’s claims. However, Judge Dolly Gee denied defense counsel’s summary judgment motion regarding the Monell claim against the county, as the probation officers in charge of supervising the wards — including Waugh and Smith — knew nothing of the other ward’s propensity for violence and treated him the same way that they treated other wards. As a result, she found that the county’s failure to inform the probation officers about a ward’s propensity for violence could impair the safety of the wards they supervise and that this supported a finding that the county acted with deliberate indifference to the plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment rights. However, Gee dismissed the Monell claim against Powers after finding that it was unnecessary and duplicative. Thus, the matter continued on the Monell claim against the county only. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that the attack was unprovoked, but could have been prevented had the line officers been aware of the other ward’s predatory history. Counsel noted that the facility had reviewed the other teenage ward’s history, but that it did not pass the information on to the line officers that supervised him or the plaintiff in their programs and recreation. Thus, counsel asserted that the county failed to protect the plaintiff from other, non-disabled inmates who had a propensity for violence. Plaintiff’s counsel filed a motion to exclude statements from a defense expert who had worked in probation departments for over 40 years and who, according to plaintiff’s counsel, wrote a report full of unsubstantiated opinions unrelated to his purported expertise. Gee granted plaintiff’s counsel’s motion and excluded the 22 statements that plaintiff’s counsel identified as being beyond the expert’s expertise in probation operations and administration; speculative, irrelevant to matters for which the expert offered admissible opinions; and/or simply substantially more prejudicial than probative., The plaintiff suffered blunt force trauma to his head as a result of the blow. He sustained a left temporal bone fracture and a traumatic brain injury, including an epidural hematoma and a contrecoup injury that resulted in ahemorrhagic contusion of the right, temporal pole. As a result, the plaintiff lost consciousness, and the center’s staff transported him by ambulance to a hospital, where the plaintiff stayed for five days. The plaintiff, now 18 years old, requires continuing, life-long, psycho-therapy and medication. However, due to the severity of his prior mental health issues, it was difficult, if not impossible, to distinguish the pre-injury mental health status to that of the post-injury mental health status.