Matt Araiza's attorneys on Friday wanted the court to permit inquiries into the plaintiff’s sexual history as part of his defense.
The former NFL prospect and San Diego State University punter was in court for a preliminary hearing in an ongoing civil case against him. A then-17-year-old girl accused Araiza of raping her at a house party near the SDSU campus on Oct. 17, 2021.
Prosecutors did not file charges against Araiza or any of the men accused, citing a lack of evidence.
In the complaint, Jane Doe also said she contracted a sexually transmitted disease because of the alleged rape. She has since walked back that claim, but the defense said her sexual past is still relevant to the case.
"The ability to challenge plaintiff's allegations and damages are essential to a fair trial for a defendant,” Araiza’s attorney, Dick Semerdjian, told the court.
Araiza's attorneys want to use it to question the young woman’s credibility. They originally wanted to inquire about her sexual past from October 2020 through October 2021, but, in court, Semerdjian asked Judge Matthew Braner to extend that period through October 2022. Semerdjian submitted evidence that he said brought those dates into question. Braner sealed the evidence while he takes the request under consideration.
The young woman's attorney, Jim Mitchell, said what happened on Oct. 17 was on trial, not anything before or after.
“The other issue is this idea: 'Well, we need to find out whether the plaintiff had the capacity to consent,'" Mitchell said. "And I look at that at this point as a red herring.”
The court is leaning toward allowing discovery on the plaintiff's sexual history, but Braner told both sides to come back in two weeks to present their arguments.
Araiza's team, however, walked out of court with a victory Friday. Braner granted Araiza’s request for a protective order. His attorneys argued that it was needed to protect him from unwanted “annoyance” and “embarrassment.”
“When documents are produced from the police department that they're kept somewhat confidential to the extent that they're not going to be available to the public until the judge rules that they can be,” Semerdjian said.
The order is also meant to save the defense time and cost in getting unredacted evidence from the San Diego Police Department. Otherwise, the police would have had to charge them for time spent redacting sensitive information.
Braner noted that it was unusual to grant a protective order to save the defense money, but he said the order was broad enough to protect all parties involved.
Deputy City Attorney Jill Cristich, representing SDPD, asked the court for clarification regarding the order. She wanted the court to adapt the order to allow SDPD to redact the names of two minor witnesses, two anonymous witnesses and two possible suspects whose names have not been made public. For the latter two, she said the reason was that they had not been properly notified in accordance with the subpoena.
Attorneys on both sides said it would defeat the purpose of discovery if they did not know who the people are to depose and notify them.
Braner called it a "catch-22" situation and told attorneys for all parties to confer to come up with a possible solution.
