In June 2015, the plaintiffs, three 8-year-old girls, attended Prairie Elementary School, in Sacramento. Two of the girls regularly attended a class whose teacher was assisted by a paraprofessional educator, Eric Echols-Gollas. The third girl regularly attended an after-school program whose supervisor was also assisted by Echols-Gollas. The girls claimed that they were inappropriately touched by Echols-Gollas. They also claimed that the inappropriate acts continued until July 24, 2016, when Echols-Gollas was placed on paid administrative leave during pendency of a Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department investigation of reports that Echols-Gollas had initiated inappropriate contact with students. In September 2016, Echols-Gollas, then 29, was arrested. He was accused of inappropriately touching seven Prairie Elementary School students, including the three plaintiffs. Echols-Gollas ultimately pleaded no contest to seven felony charges of committing lewd acts to minors under age 14 and one misdemeanor count of molesting a minor. He was sentenced to 11 years in prison in 2017. The girls’ mothers, acting in behalf of the girls, sued Echols-Gollas; a teacher whose classroom was alleged to have been a site of much of the abuse, Lesley McKillop; a supervisor of the after-school program, Mike Smith; Prairie Elementary School’s vice principal, Laura Anderson; Prairie Elementary School’s principal, Robin Riley; and the operator of the elementary school, Elk Grove Unified School District. The plaintiffs alleged that Echols-Gollas’ actions constituted negligence and battery. They also alleged that the school district and its employees were negligent for failing to exercise ordinary care to protect students from being molested and for missing warning signs that students were being abused. Anderson was dismissed without prejudice, and Echols-Gollas was dismissed with prejudice. The matter proceeded to a trial against McKillop, Riley, Smith and the Elk Grove Unified School District. Echols-Gollas did not attend the trial. Plaintiffs’ counsel contended that the three girls were regularly seen sitting on Echols-Gollas’ lap, receiving hugs from him, while in the classroom teacher’s presence. Counsel also contended that a yard supervisor failed to file a report after the students, both by themselves and with others, said Echols-Gollas had touched them inappropriately. Plaintiffs’ counsel argued that the inaction resulted in Echols-Gollas remaining on campus to inappropriately touch the children. Defense counsel argued that the school district and its employees were not negligent in their supervision of Echols-Gollas. The school district admitted that two of the plaintiffs first reported to a yard monitor, Maria Stepter, on June 10, 2016, that Echols-Gollas was touching them inappropriately. It also admitted that there were subsequent reports until Stepter reported the incidents to the district’s human-resources office on July 22, 2016. Echols-Gollas was immediately removed from campus on July 22, 2016, before he was arrested. As a result, the school district admitted liability for the yard monitor’s violation of the Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Act. Defense counsel referenced the Sacramento Police Department’s Special Assault Forensic Evaluation interviews of the three plaintiffs, which were conducted within several weeks of the disclosure of the issues in the summer of 2016. The interviews were conducted by trained individuals affiliated with the Sacramento Police Department’s criminal investigation. According to the interviewers, the girls independently recalled that the improper touching began sometime in the middle of the 2015-2016 school year, approximately December 2015 or January 2016. The plaintiffs’ descriptions of the frequency and duration of the inappropriate touching were anywhere from as little as three to as many as 20 times from the middle of the school year to the end of the school year. Defense counsel argued that the plaintiffs’ claims during the interviews contrasted significantly with their deposition and trial testimony, during which they claimed that the abuse was happening one or two times daily and continued to occur to two of the plaintiffs after they first reported the inappropriate touching to Stepter., The three minor plaintiffs, now 11, and identified in court filings as “Jane Doe,” “Jane Moe” and “Jane Roe,” claimed that they were sexually assaulted. They also claimed that they suffered resultant emotional distress. They have been undergoing counseling. The plaintiffs’ psychiatry expert testified that two of the plaintiffs were inappropriately touched by Echols-Gollas on a daily basis, hundreds of times over the school year, and that one of the girls was taken to an adjacent room where she was touched by Echols-Gollas skin-on-skin. The plaintiff’s psychiatry expert testified that one of the girls, Jane Roe, was having difficulty in school and did not like teachers after the incidents. The expert also opined that the girl now interrupts her mother’s relationships with men and is suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder with symptoms of depression. The psychiatry expert further opined that the girl would require ongoing counseling for various issues, including the likelihood of suicidal ideation. In regard to the other girl that the plaintiff’s psychiatry expert evaluated, Jane Moe, the expert opined that the girl was also suffering from PTSD, which manifested in her fighting with other students. The expert also indicated that the girl was recently confronted by another student who yelled at her in front of other students about being raped and that the girl is now afraid of “big, white men,” which would trigger the subject events. As a result, the expert opined that the girl also requires ongoing counseling. As to the third girl, Jane Doe, she claimed that Echols-Gollas would regularly turn her upside down in a playful game, during which he touched her on her butt. She also claimed that Echols-Gollas would touch her breasts when picking her up in the air and, on occasion, would take her to a dark room to play games, though she did not elaborate on what those “games” entailed. The girl claimed that as a result of the incidents, she experienced episodes of emotional dysfunction, is worried about Echols-Gollas being released from prison, and is unable to sleep alone. The plaintiffs’ psychiatry expert testified that full disclosure by sex abuse victims occurs over time because of shame and embarrassment. However, the expert opined that the frequency and duration of the alleged inappropriate touching caused type II trauma in all plaintiffs, which she testified is more complicated in terms of treatment and prognosis. The plaintiffs waived economic damages, and plaintiffs’ counsel suggested that the jury award each girl $15 million for their respective pain and suffering. The defense’s expert psychologist with significant experience with sex abuse victims, testified on the school district’s behalf. He did not interview the children, but described the contamination of the girls’ memories of the alleged events with the suggestibility of multiple interviews and discussions with friends and parents. The expert’s testimony was used to discredit the girls’ current descriptions as to the alleged incidents occurring hundreds of times over the course of the entire 2015/2016 school year. Defense counsel noted that two of the plaintiffs’ counselors indicated that two of the girls — Jane Moe and Jane Doe — had benefited from counseling and were doing quite well with therapy. Counsel also noted that the counselors anticipated that regular therapy sessions would soon be terminated. Defense counsel further noted that the treating counselor for the third girl opined that the girl was having ongoing PTSD issues, but that she began therapy late in the summer of 2018 and had a “long path ahead of her.” Defense counsel used the anchor of counseling costs (250 sessions over their lifetime at $225 per hour for a total cost of $45,000) to determine how much the plaintiffs should be awarded for damages. Specifically, counsel suggested damages of $75,000 to $100,000 for Jane Doe; $150,000 to $175,000 for Jane Moe; and $300,000 to $400,000 for Jane Roe. However, the defense argued for the verdict to be limited to the time period before the girls reported the incidents to Stepter, the yard supervisor, and requested that virtually all apportionment percentages be placed on Echols-Gollas.