JOHN BL DOE VS SERBIAN ORTHODOX DIOCESE OF WESTERN AMERICA, A CALIFORNIA NONPROFIT RELIGIOUS CORPORATION, ET AL.

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: *******2219 Hearing Date: August 11, 2023 Dept: E

Hearing Date: 08/11/2023 – 9:30am & 10:00am Case No: *******2219 Trial Date: 09/26/2023 Case Name: JOHN BL DOE, an individual v. SERBIAN ORTHODOX DIOCESE OF WESTERN AMERICA, a California Nonprofit Religious Corporation; THE BROTHERHOOD OF ST. HERMAN OF ALASKA, a California Nonprofit Religious Corporation; JOHN CHRISTENSEN; an individual; THOMAS DOVE, an individual; and DOES 1-50 inclusive

TENTATIVE RULINGS ON 8 MOTIONS TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES

[Defendants filed a “Defendants’ Notice of Lodging Under Seal” on 08/01/2023 that noted all the documents that were allegedly lodged with the Court.]

MOTION 1 [10:00am]

RELIEF REQUESTED Plaintiff, John BL Doe, brings the instant Motion to Compel Further Responses from Defendant John Christensen to Requests for Production of Documents, pursuant to 2031.010, 2031.310, et seq.

“The instant Motion is based on the Diocese’s failure to provide substantive responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production Nos. 8, 11, 15, 30, 34, 35, 36, 37, and 38.” [Presumably, Plaintiff made a typo and meant to say, “…John Christensen’s failure…” and not “…the Diocese’s failure…”]

[The Court notes that the notice of motion mentions RFP 30; however, neither Plaintiff’s redacted separate statement nor sealed separate statement contained RFP 30. Therefore, the Court will not consider RFP 30 before the Court on this motion.]

Plaintiff requests that the Court impose monetary sanctions against Defendant Diocese and its counsel of record, Quinn, Emanual, Urquhart & Sullivan in the amount of $1,800.00 to reimburse Plaintiff for the reasonable cost of bringing this Motion. [Your Honor – Note that Plaintiff incorrectly requested sanctions against Diocese and not John Christensen.]

Procedural

Moving Party: Plaintiff, John BL Doe Responding Party: Defendant, John Christensen

Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC Rule 3.1300): Ok 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP 1005(b)): Ok Proper Address (CCP 1013, 1013a, 1013b): Ok

Moving Papers: Motion; Separate Statement [Redacted]; Proposed Order; Aanestad Decl. [Redacted]; Separate Statement [Under Seal]; Aanestad Decl. [Under Seal]

Opposition Papers: Opposition [Redacted]; Hayrapetian Decl. [Redacted]; Separate Statement [Redacted]; Opposition [Under Seal]; Hayrapetian Decl. [Under Seal]

Reply Papers: Reply; Exhibits to Decl. [Under Seal]

NOTE: Defendants’ Notice of Lodging Under Seal stated there was a “Separate Statement in Support of Defendant John Christensen’s Opposition to Plaintiff John BL Doe’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Plaintiff’s Requests For Production of Documents, Set One, And For Sanctions Against It and Its Counsel” lodged with the Court; however, this document was not lodged with the Court.

BACKGROUND The instant action stems from Plaintiff’s allegations of sexual abuse occurring at the St. Herman of Alaska Monastery from in or around March of 2013 to September of 2014, when Plaintiff was 12-13 years old. (Pl. Mot. p. 1-2.) Plaintiff alleges the sexual abuse was perpetrated by Defendants Christensen and Dove, and was enabled by Defendants Diocese and The Brotherhood of St. Herman of Alaska. (Pl. Mot. p. 2.)

LEGAL STANDARD – COMPEL FURTHER – REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION

Under CCP 2017.010, “any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action..., if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” The Section specifically provides that “[d]iscovery may relate to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or of any other party to the action,” and that discovery “may be obtained of the identity and location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter, as well as of the existence, description, nature, custody, condition and location of any document, electronically stored information, tangible thing, or land or other property.”

CCP 2031.310(a) provides that a party demanding a document inspection may move for an order compelling further responses to the demand if the demanding party deems that:

“(1) A statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete.

(2) A representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive.

(3) An objection in the response is without merit or too general.”

Under CCP 2031.310 (b)(1), “The motion shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand.”

The burden is on the moving party to show both relevance to the subject matter and specific facts justifying discovery. (Glenfed Develop. Corp. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1117. ) Once good cause is established by the moving party, the burden then shifts to the responding party to justify any objections made to document disclosure. (See Hartbrodt v. Burke (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 168, 172-174.)

ANALYSIS

45-Day Requirement Unless notice of this motion is given within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or on or before any specific later date to which the demanding party and the responding party have agreed in writing, the demanding party waives any right to compel a further response to the demand. (CCP 2031.310(c).)

Here, Plaintiff states the motion to compel deadline was on April 17, 2023. The Court is unclear as to how Plaintiff arrived at this date being the deadline to compel further responses. However, Opposition does not argue that April 17, 2023 was not the deadline, and Opposition does not argue that the instant motion is untimely. Therefore, since the instant moving papers were served on April 17, 2023, this motion is thus timely.

Meet and Confer “The motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.” (CCP 2031.310(b)(2).)

Here, Plaintiff met and conferred. (Decl. Aanestad 10-13, Ex. 8-9.)

TENTATIVE RULING RFP 8 Objections of overbroad and unduly burdensome are sustained. Plaintiff did not carry his burden to show good cause for RFP 8 as phrased. The burden is on the moving party to show both relevance to the subject matter and specific facts justifying discovery. (Glenfed Develop. Corp. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1117. ) Once good cause is established by the moving party, the burden then shifts to the responding party to justify any objections made to document disclosure. (See Hartbrodt v. Burke (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 168, 172-174.)

Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to RFP 8 is DENIED.

TENTATIVE RULING RFP 11 Objections of overbroad and unduly burdensome are sustained. Plaintiff did not carry his burden to show good cause for RFP 11 as phrased. Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to RFP 11 is DENIED.

TENTATIVE RULING RFP 15 Objections of overbroad and unduly burdensome are sustained. Plaintiff did not carry his burden to show good cause for RFP 15 as phrased. Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to RFP 15 is DENIED.

TENTATIVE RULING RFP 34 Objections overruled as to relevance, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, overbroad, unduly burdensome, oppressive, and harassing.

As to Defendant’s objections on attorney-client privilege, the clergy-penitent privilege, the work-product doctrine, and other applicable privileges under the California and United States Constitutions, Defendant did not provide a code compliant response.

As stated in CCP 2031.240(b)-(c):

(b) If the responding party objects to the demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling of an item or category of item, the response shall do both of the following:

(1) Identify with particularity any document, tangible thing, land, or electronically stored information falling within any category of item in the demand to which an objection is being made.

(2) Set forth clearly the extent of, and the specific ground for, the objection. If an objection is based on a claim of privilege, the particular privilege invoked shall be stated. If an objection is based on a claim that the information sought is protected work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010), that claim shall be expressly asserted.

(c) (1) If an objection is based on a claim of privilege or a claim that the information sought is protected work product, the response shall provide sufficient factual information for other parties to evaluate the merits of that claim, including, if necessary, a privilege log.

(2) It is the intent of the Legislature to codify the concept of a privilege log as that term is used in California case law. Nothing in this subdivision shall be construed to constitute a substantive change in case law.

(CCP 2031.240(b)-(c).)

Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to RFP 34 is GRANTED. Defendant is ordered to provide a further response, under oath, in a code compliant manner, and to produce the discoverable documents, within 20 days.

TENTATIVE RULING RFP 35, 36, 37, 38 Objections overruled as to relevance, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, overbroad, unduly burdensome, oppressive, and harassing.

As to Defendant’s objections on attorney-client privilege, the clergy-penitent privilege, the work-product doctrine, and other applicable privileges under the California and United States Constitutions, Defendant did not provide a code compliant response in accordance with 2031.240(b)-(c).

Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to RFPs 35, 36, 37, and 38 is GRANTED. Defendant is ordered to provide further responses, under oath, in a code compliant manner, and to produce the discoverable documents, within 20 days.

SANCTIONS RULING Except as provided in subdivision (j), the court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further response to a demand, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. (CCP 2031.310(h).)

Plaintiff seeks sanctions in the amount of $1,800.00 against Christensen and its counsel for a portion of the costs or preparing, filing, and attending the hearing on this motion. The Aanestad declaration requests sanctions as follows: (1) Billing rate of $450/hour; (2) 3 hours spent researching and drafting this motion and compiling supporting documents and exhibits; (3) 1 hour to review and respond to opposition.

Opposition argues that Plaintiff should be sanctioned for failing to timely meet and confer after Defendant’s supplemental productions and before filing this motion. Defendant’s counsel did not state what amount that Plaintiff should be sanctioned in Defendant’s Opposition. Further, Defendant’s counsel’s declaration did not include a sanctions request.

Defendant’s argument that Plaintiff did not timely meet and confer is not supported by the facts. However, no sanctions are awarded to either party as this Motion was denied in part and granted in part. Further, the notice of motion requested sanctions against the Diocese and not Defendant Christensen. The Court finds that it would be unjust under all the circumstances here to award sanctions to either party.

MOTION 2 [9:30am]

RELIEF REQUESTED Plaintiff, John BL Doe, brings the instant Motion to Compel Further Responses to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories, Set One, No. 46 from Defendant The Brotherhood of St. Herman Alaska pursuant to CCP 2030.300.

The instant Motion is based on the Brotherhood’s failure to provide substantive responses to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatory No. 46, seeking identification of each resident of the Monastery during the time in which the Plaintiff was abused at the Monastery while a resident himself.

Plaintiff requests that the Court impose monetary sanctions against Defendant the Brotherhood and its counsel of record in the amount of $1,800.00 to reimburse Plaintiff for the reasonable cost of bringing this Motion.

Procedural

Moving Party: Plaintiff, John BL Doe Responding Party: Defendant, The Brotherhood of St. Herman of Alaska

Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC Rule 3.1300): Ok 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP 1005(b)): Ok Proper Address (CCP 1013, 1013a, 1013b): Ok

Moving Papers: Motion; Separate Statement [Redacted]; Aanestad Decl. [Redacted]; Proposed Order; Separate Statement [Under Seal]; Aanestad Decl. [Under Seal]

Opposition Papers: Opposition; Separate Statement; Hayrapetian Decl. [Redacted]; Hayrapetian [Under Seal]

Reply Papers: Reply

LEGAL STANDARD - COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES On receipt of a response to interrogatories, the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the propounding party deems that any of the following apply:

(1) An answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete.

(2) An exercise of the option to produce documents under Section 2030.230 is unwarranted or the required specification of those documents is inadequate.

(3) An objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general.

(CCP 2030.300(a).

If a timely motion to compel has been filed, the burden is on the responding party to justify any objection or failure fully to answer. (Coy v. Superior Court of Contra Costa County (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220–221 [addressing a motion to compel further responses to interrogatories]; see also Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255.)

Furthermore, to the extent there is any doubt in whether these records should be discoverable, California’s liberal approach to discovery provides that doubt should be resolved in favor of permitting discovery. (Pacific Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 161, 173.)

The party to whom interrogatories have been propounded shall respond in writing under oath separately to each interrogatory by any of the following:

(1) An answer containing the information sought to be discovered.

(2) An exercise of the party’s option to produce writings.

(3) An objection to the particular interrogatory.

(CCP 2030.210(a).)

ANALYSIS 45-Day Requirement “Unless notice of this motion is given within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or on or before any specific later date to which the propounding party and the responding party have agreed in writing, the propounding party waives any right to compel a further response to the interrogatories.” (CCP 2030.300(c).)

Here, Plaintiff states the motion to compel deadline was on April 17, 2023. The Court is unclear as to how Plaintiff arrived at this date being the deadline to compel further responses. However, Opposition does not argue that April 17, 2023 was not the deadline, and Opposition does not argue that the instant motion is untimely. Therefore, since the instant moving papers were served on April 17, 2023, this motion is thus timely.

Meet and Confer “A motion under subdivision (a) shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.” (CCP 2030.300(b)(1).)

Here, Plaintiff met and conferred. (Decl. Aanestad 10-13, Ex. 8-9.)

TENTATIVE RULING Here, both parties appear to agree that no further response is needed for SROG 46. However, Defendant argues that this motion is moot, and Plaintiff argues that this motion is not moot because sanctions are still at issue. Plaintiff’s point is well-taken.

As stated in California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1348(a), “The court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition to the motion was filed, or opposition to the motion was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed.”

Although Defendant correctly argued that it had no obligation to extend Plaintiff’s deadline to move to compel further responses, Defendant’s failure to extend the deadline led Plaintiff to file this motion. As Plaintiff’s Reply accurately noted, it was unknowable at the Motion deadline whether Defendant would actually supplement its response to SROG 46. If Plaintiff took Defendant’s word for it, and if Defendant did not provide the supplemental response, Plaintiff would not have been able to file a motion to compel further and would be left without relief.

Plaintiff’s motion to compel a further response to SROG 46 is denied as moot; however, the issue of whether sanctions are available for Plaintiff is not moot.

Sanctions “The court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a further response to interrogatories, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (CCP 2030.300(d).)

“The court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition to the motion was filed, or opposition to the motion was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed.” (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule, 3.1348(a).)

In moving paper papers, Plaintiff requested sanctions in the amount of $1,800.00 against the Brotherhood and its counsel under CCP 2030.300(d). The Aanestad declaration requests sanctions as follows: (1) Billing rate of $450/hour; (2) 3 hours spent researching and drafting this motion and compiling supporting documents and exhibits; (3) 1 hour to review and respond to opposition.

In Opposition, Defendant argues Plaintiff and his counsel should be sanctioned in the amount of $1,800.00 for unsuccessfully and without substantial justification bringing this motion. Defendant requests sanctions as follows: (1) Billing rate of $747/hour; (2) 15 hours preparing this motion; (3) 5 hours preparing for and attending the hearing at the same rate. [Despite the aforementioned rate and time spent, Defendant’s counsel requests $1,800 in sanctions.

In Reply, Plaintiff argues it is entitled to sanctions under CCP 2025.450(g)(1). The Reply also refers to CRC 3.1348(a).

Here, it is unclear why the Plaintiff initially requested sanctions under 2030.300(d) then in the Reply mentioned sanctions under 2025.450(g)(1). However, Plaintiff’s citation to CRC 3.1348(a) appears to be on point. Even though no further response is needed here by Plaintiff, Plaintiff was forced to file this motion because Defendant failed to grant Plaintiff an extension of time in which to file a motion to compel. Plaintiff would have been left with no relief if Defendant had not supplemented its response. Plaintiff is thus awarded reasonable discovery sanctions against Defendant and its counsel of record, jointly and severally, in the amount of $1,300.00, payable within 30 days.

MOTION 3 [9:30am]

RELIEF REQUESTED Plaintiff, John BL Doe, brings the instant Motion to Compel Further Responses from Defendant the Brotherhood of St. Herman of Alaska to Requests for Production of Documents, pursuant to CCP 2031.010, 3031.310, et. seq.

The instant Motion is based on the Brotherhood’s failure to provide substantive responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production, Nos. 6, 9, 13, 30, 41, and 42.

Plaintiff requests the Court impose monetary sanctions against Defendant Brotherhood and its counsel of record in the amount of $1,800.00 to reimburse Plaintiff for the reasonable cost of bringing this motion.

Procedural

Moving Party: Plaintiff, John BL Doe Responding Party: Defendant, The Brotherhood of St. Herman of Alaska

Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC Rule 3.1300): Ok 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP 1005(b)): Ok Proper Address (CCP 1013, 1013a, 1013b): Ok

Moving Papers: Motion; Aanestad Decl. [Redacted]; Aanestad Decl. [Redacted]; Proposed Order; Aanestad Decl. [Under Seal]; Separate Statement [Under Seal]

[The Court notes that Plaintiff submitted two redacted Aanestad declarations. For the other motions submitted by Plaintiff, Plaintiff included a redacted separate statement in its moving papers for each motion. For this motion, Plaintiff did not include a redacted separate statement. Plaintiff only included a separate statement under seal.]

Opposition Papers: Bjerke Declaration; Hayrapetian Decl. [Redacted]; Opposition [Redacted]; Separate Statement [Redacted]; Hayrapetian Decl. [Under Seal]; Opposition [Under Seal]; Separate Statement [Under Seal]

Reply Papers: Reply; Exhibits to Decl. [Under Seal]

LEGAL STANDARD – COMPEL FURTHER – REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION

See Motion 1 Legal Standard.

ANALYSIS

45-Day Requirement Unless notice of this motion is given within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or on or before any specific later date to which the demanding party and the responding party have agreed in writing, the demanding party waives any right to compel a further response to the demand. (CCP 2031.310(c).)

Here, Plaintiff states the motion to compel deadline was on April 17, 2023. The Court is unclear as to how Plaintiff arrived at this date being the deadline to compel further responses. However, Opposition does not argue that April 17, 2023 was not the deadline, and Opposition does not argue that the instant motion is untimely. Therefore, since the instant moving papers were served on April 17, 2023, this motion is thus timely.

Meet and Confer “The motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.” (CCP 2031.310(b)(2).)

Here, Plaintiff met and conferred. (Decl. Aanestad 10-13, Ex. 8-9.)

TENTATIVE RULING RFP 6 Objections of overbroad and unduly burdensome are sustained. Plaintiff did not carry his burden to show good cause for RFP 6 as phrased. The burden is on the moving party to show both relevance to the subject matter and specific facts justifying discovery. (Glenfed Develop. Corp. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1117. ) Once good cause is established by the moving party, the burden then shifts to the responding party to justify any objections made to document disclosure. (See Hartbrodt v. Burke (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 168, 172-174.)

Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to RFP 6 is DENIED.

TENTATIVE RULING RFP 9 Objections of overbroad and unduly burdensome are sustained. Plaintiff did not carry his burden to show good cause for RFP 9 as phrased. Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to RFP 9 is DENIED.

TENTATIVE RULING RFP 13 Objections of overbroad and unduly burdensome are sustained. Plaintiff did not carry his burden to show good cause for RFP 13 as phrased. Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to RFP 13 is DENIED.

TENTATIVE RULING RFP 40 Objections overruled as to relevance, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, overbroad, unduly burdensome, and oppressive.

As to Defendant’s objections on attorney-client privilege, the clergy-penitent privilege, the work-product doctrine, and other applicable privileges under the California and United States Constitutions, Defendant did not provide a code compliant response.

As stated in CCP 2031.240(b)-(c):

(b) If the responding party objects to the demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling of an item or category of item, the response shall do both of the following:

(1) Identify with particularity any document, tangible thing, land, or electronically stored information falling within any category of item in the demand to which an objection is being made.

(2) Set forth clearly the extent of, and the specific ground for, the objection. If an objection is based on a claim of privilege, the particular privilege invoked shall be stated. If an objection is based on a claim that the information sought is protected work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010), that claim shall be expressly asserted.

(c) (1) If an objection is based on a claim of privilege or a claim that the information sought is protected work product, the response shall provide sufficient factual information for other parties to evaluate the merits of that claim, including, if necessary, a privilege log.

(2) It is the intent of the Legislature to codify the concept of a privilege log as that term is used in California case law. Nothing in this subdivision shall be construed to constitute a substantive change in case law.

(CCP 2031.240(b)-(c).)

Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to RFP 40 is GRANTED. Defendant is ordered to provide a further response, under oath, in a code compliant manner, and to produce the discoverable documents, within 20 days.

TENTATIVE RULING RFP 41 and 42 Objections overruled as to relevance, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, overbroad, unduly burdensome, and oppressive.

As to Defendant’s objections on attorney-client privilege, the clergy-penitent privilege, the work-product doctrine, and other applicable privileges under the California and United States Constitutions, Defendant did not provide a code compliant response in accordance with 2031.240(b)-(c).

Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to RFPs 41 and 42 is GRANTED. Defendant is ordered to provide further responses, under oath, in a code compliant manner, and to produce the discoverable documents, within 20 days.

SANCTIONS RULING Except as provided in subdivision (j), the court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further response to a demand, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. (CCP 2031.310(h).)

Plaintiff seeks sanctions in the amount of $1,800.00 against the Brotherhood and its counsel for a portion of the costs or preparing, filing, and attending the hearing on this motion. The Aanestad declaration requests sanctions as follows: (1) Billing rate of $450/hour; (2) 3 hours spent researching and drafting this motion and compiling supporting documents and exhibits; (3) 1 hour to review and respond to opposition.

Opposition argues the Brotherhood acted with substantial justification in standing on its objections to Plaintiff’s multiplicity of overbroad, harassing, and irrelevant requests and Plaintiff’s requests for sanctions should be denied. Opposition argues that if any party is to be sanctioned, it should be Plaintiff who failed to timely meet and confer after Defendant’s supplemental productions and before filing this motion.

Defendant’s counsel did not state what amount that Plaintiff should be sanctioned in Defendant’s Opposition. Further, Defendant’s counsel’s declaration did not include a sanctions request.

Defendant’s argument that Plaintiff did not timely meet and confer is not supported by the facts. However, no sanctions are awarded to either party as this Motion was denied in part and granted in part. Further, the notice of motion requested sanctions against the Diocese and not Defendant Christensen. The Court finds that it would be unjust under all the circumstances here to award sanctions to either party.

MOTION 4 [9:30am]

RELIEF REQUESTED Plaintiff, John BL Doe, brings the instant Motion to Compel Further Response to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories, Set One from Defendant John Christensen pursuant to CCP 2030.300. The Special Interrogatories at issue are: 20, 21, 31, 32, 33, 36, 39, 40, 41, 42, 46, 47, 48.

Plaintiff requests the Court impose monetary sanctions against Defendant Christensen and his counsel of record in the amount of $1,800.00.

Procedural

Moving Party: Plaintiff, John BL Doe Responding Party: Defendant, John Christensen

Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC Rule 3.1300): Ok 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP 1005(b)): Ok Proper Address (CCP 1013, 1013a, 1013b): Ok

Moving Papers: Motion; Proposed Order; Separate Statement [Redacted]; Aanestad Decl. [Redacted]; Separate Statement [Under Seal]; Aanestad Decl. [Under Seal]

Opposition Papers: Opposition [Redacted]; Separate Statement [Redacted]; Hayrapetian Decl. [Redacted]; Hayrapetian Decl. [Under Seal]; Opposition [Under Seal]; Separate Statement [Under Seal]

Reply Papers: Reply; Exhibits to Decl. [Under Seal]

LEGAL STANDARD - COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES On receipt of a response to interrogatories, the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the propounding party deems that any of the following apply:

(4) An answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete.

(5) An exercise of the option to produce documents under Section 2030.230 is unwarranted or the required specification of those documents is inadequate.

(6) An objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general.

(CCP 2030.300(a).

If a timely motion to compel has been filed, the burden is on the responding party to justify any objection or failure fully to answer. (Coy v. Superior Court of Contra Costa County (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220–221 [addressing a motion to compel further responses to interrogatories]; see also Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255.)

Furthermore, to the extent there is any doubt in whether these records should be discoverable, California’s liberal approach to discovery provides that doubt should be resolved in favor of permitting discovery. (Pacific Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 161, 173.)

The party to whom interrogatories have been propounded shall respond in writing under oath separately to each interrogatory by any of the following:

(1) An answer containing the information sought to be discovered.

(2) An exercise of the party’s option to produce writings.

(3) An objection to the particular interrogatory.

(CCP 2030.210(a).)

ANALYSIS 45-Day Requirement “Unless notice of this motion is given within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or on or before any specific later date to which the propounding party and the responding party have agreed in writing, the propounding party waives any right to compel a further response to the interrogatories.” (CCP 2030.300(c).)

Here, Plaintiff states the motion to compel deadline was on April 17, 2023. The Court is unclear as to how Plaintiff arrived at this date being the deadline to compel further responses. However, Opposition does not argue that April 17, 2023, was not the deadline, and Opposition does not argue that the instant motion is untimely.

Meet and Confer “A motion under subdivision (a) shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.” (CCP 2030.300(b)(1).)

Here, Plaintiff met and conferred. (Decl. Aanestad 10-13, Ex. 8-9.)

TENTATIVE RULING SROGs 31, 32, 33, 36, 46, 47, 48 As to SROGs 31, 32, 33, 36, 46, 47, and 48, Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s counsel has conceded that these SROGs have been supplemented by the Defendant and thus are no longer at issue. It appears as if Plaintiff’s counsel agrees that these SROGs no longer need further responses. However, Plaintiff notes in Reply that Christensen supplemented his responses to SROGs 31, 32, 33, 36, 46, 47, and 48 after the Plaintiff filed the instant motion; therefore, Plaintiff argues sanctions are warranted.

Here the Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to SROGs 31, 32, 33, 36, 46, 47, and 48 is DENIED as moot. However, the issue of sanctions is not moot.

TENTATIVE RULING SROG 20 Objections of overbroad and unduly burdensome are sustained. Defendant justified its objections. The SROG statute doesn’t contain a good cause requirement. If a timely motion to compel has been filed, the burden is on the responding party to justify any objection or failure fully to answer. (Coy v. Superior Court of Contra Costa County (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220–221 [addressing a motion to compel further responses to interrogatories]; see also Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255.). Plaintiff’s motion to compel a further response to SROG 20 is DENIED.

TENTATIVE RULING SROG 21 Objections of overbroad and unduly burdensome are sustained. Defendant justified its objections. Plaintiff’s motion to compel a further response to SROG 21 is Denied.

TENTATIVE RULING SROG 39, 40, 41, and 42 Defendant’s objections are overruled. “If an objection is made to an interrogatory or to a part of an interrogatory, the specific ground for the objection shall be set forth clearly in the response. If an objection is based on a claim of privilege, the particular privilege invoked shall be clearly stated. If an objection is based on a claim that the information sought is protected work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010), that claim shall be expressly asserted.” (CCP 2030.240(b).)

Defendant did not successfully justify its objections in Opposition. If a timely motion to compel has been filed, the burden is on the responding party to justify any objection or failure fully to answer. (Coy v. Superior Court of Contra Costa County (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220–221 [addressing a motion to compel further responses to interrogatories]; see also Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255.)

Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to SROGs 39, 40, 41, and 42 is GRANTED. Defendant is ordered to provide further responses, under oath, in a code compliant manner within 20 days.

Sanctions “The court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a further response to interrogatories, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (CCP 2030.300(d).)

“The court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition to the motion was filed, or opposition to the motion was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed.” (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule, 3.1348(a).)

Plaintiff requested sanctions in the amount of $1,800.00 against Christensen and its counsel. The Aanestad declaration requests sanctions as follows: (1) Billing rate of $450/hour; (2) 3 hours spent researching and drafting this motion and compiling supporting documents and exhibits; (3) 1 hour to review and respond to opposition.

In Opposition, Defendant argues that the Diocese [Presumably Defendant meant Christensen] acted with substantial justification in standing on its objections to Plaintiff’s multiplicity of overbroad, harassing, and irrelevant requests and Plaintiff’s request for sanctions should be denied. Defendant argues Plaintiff should be sanctioned for failing to timely meet and confer after Defendant’s supplemental productions and before filing this motion. Defendant’s Opposition provided no amount that it wanted for Plaintiff to be sanctioned. Further, Defendant’s Declaration provided no explanation as to sanctions. Plaintiff did timely meet and confer.

In Reply, Plaintiff argues supplemental responses to 31, 32, 33, 36, 46, 47, and 48 were not provided until after the Plaintiff filed the instant motion.

This Motion was ultimately resolved in Plaintiff’s favor for the most part. Plaintiff is thus awarded reasonable discovery sanctions against Defendant and its counsel of record, jointly and severally, in the amount of $1,000.00, payable within 30 days.

MOTION 5 [9:30am]

RELIEF REQUESTED Plaintiff, John BL Doe, brings the instant Motion to Compel Further Response to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories, Set One, from Defendant Thomas Dove pursuant to CCP 2030.300. The Special Interrogatories at issue are: 15, 16, 26, 27, 28, 31, 34, 35, 36, 37, 41, 42, 43.

Plaintiff requests the court impose monetary sanctions against Defendant Dove and his counsel of record in the amount of $1,800.00.

Procedural

Moving Party: Plaintiff, John BL Doe Responding Party: Defendant, Thomas Dove

Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC Rule 3.1300): Ok 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP 1005(b)): Ok Proper Address (CCP 1013, 1013a, 1013b): Ok

Moving Papers: Motion; Aanestad Decl. [Redacted]; Proposed Order; Separate Statement [Redacted]; Aanestad Decl. [Under Seal]; Separate Statement [Under Seal]

Opposition Papers: Opposition [Redacted]; Separate Statement [Redacted]; Hayrapetian Decl. [Redacted]; Opposition [Under Seal]; Separate Statement [Under Seal]; Hayrapetian Decl. [Under Seal]

Reply Papers: Reply; Exhibits to Decl. [Under Seal]

LEGAL STANDARD - COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES On receipt of a response to interrogatories, the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the propounding party deems that any of the following apply:

(7) An answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete.

(8) An exercise of the option to produce documents under Section 2030.230 is unwarranted or the required specification of those documents is inadequate.

(9) An objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general.

(CCP 2030.300(a).

If a timely motion to compel has been filed, the burden is on the responding party to justify any objection or failure fully to answer. (Coy v. Superior Court of Contra Costa County (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220–221 [addressing a motion to compel further responses to interrogatories]; see also Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255.)

Furthermore, to the extent there is any doubt in whether these records should be discoverable, California’s liberal approach to discovery provides that doubt should be resolved in favor of permitting discovery. (Pacific Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 161, 173.)

The party to whom interrogatories have been propounded shall respond in writing under oath separately to each interrogatory by any of the following:

(1) An answer containing the information sought to be discovered.

(2) An exercise of the party’s option to produce writings.

(3) An objection to the particular interrogatory.

(CCP 2030.210(a).)

ANALYSIS 45-Day Requirement “Unless notice of this motion is given within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or on or before any specific later date to which the propounding party and the responding party have agreed in writing, the propounding party waives any right to compel a further response to the interrogatories.” (CCP 2030.300(c).)

Here, Plaintiff states the motion to compel deadline was on April 17, 2023. The Court is unclear as to how Plaintiff arrived at this date being the deadline to compel further responses. However, Opposition does not argue that April 17, 2023 was not the deadline, and Opposition does not argue that the instant motion is untimely. Therefore, since the instant moving papers were served on April 17, 2023, this motion is thus timely.

Meet and Confer “A motion under subdivision (a) shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.” (CCP 2030.300(b)(1).)

Here, Plaintiff met and conferred. (Decl. Aanestad 10-13, Ex. 8-9.)

TENTATIVE RULING SROGs 26, 27, 28, 31, 41, 42, 43 As to SROGs 26, 27, 28, 31, 41, 42, and 43 Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s counsel has conceded that these SROGs have been supplemented by the Defendant and thus are no longer at issue. It appears as if Plaintiff’s counsel agrees that these SROGs no longer need further responses based on Plaintiff’s notice of Reply stating, “Specifically, Plaintiff files his Reply in support of his Motion to Compel Special Interrogatories 15, 16, 34, 35, 36, and 37 and request for sanctions.”

Here the Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to SROGs 26, 27, 28, 31, 41, 42, and 43 is DENIED as moot. However, the issue of sanctions is not moot.

TENTATIVE RULING SROG 15 Objections of overbroad, unduly burdensome, vague, ambiguous, and oppressive are sustained. Defendant justified its objections. The SROG statute doesn’t contain a good cause requirement. If a timely motion to compel has been filed, the burden is on the responding party to justify any objection or failure fully to answer. (Coy v. Superior Court of Contra Costa County (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220–221 [addressing a motion to compel further responses to interrogatories]; see also Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255.). Plaintiff’s motion to compel a further response to SROG 15 is DENIED.

TENTATIVE RULING SROG 16 Objections of overbroad, unduly burdensome, vague, ambiguous, and oppressive are sustained. Defendant justified its objections. Plaintiff’s motion to compel a further response to SROG 16 is Denied.

TENTATIVE RULING SROGs 34, 35, 36, and 37 Defendant’s objections are overruled. “If an objection is made to an interrogatory or to a part of an interrogatory, the specific ground for the objection shall be set forth clearly in the response. If an objection is based on a claim of privilege, the particular privilege invoked shall be clearly stated. If an objection is based on a claim that the information sought is protected work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010), that claim shall be expressly asserted.” (CCP 2030.240(b).)

Defendant did not successfully justify its objections in Opposition. If a timely motion to compel has been filed, the burden is on the responding party to justify any objection or failure fully to answer. (Coy v. Superior Court of Contra Costa County (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220–221 [addressing a motion to compel further responses to interrogatories]; see also Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255.)

Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to SROGs 34, 35, 36, and 37 is GRANTED. Defendant is ordered to provide further responses, under oath, in a code compliant manner within 20 days.

Sanctions “The court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a further response to interrogatories, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (CCP 2030.300(d).)

“The court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition to the motion was filed, or opposition to the motion was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed.” (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule, 3.1348(a).)

Plaintiff requested sanctions in the amount of $1,800.00 against Dove and its counsel. The Aanestad declaration requests sanctions as follows: (1) Billing rate of $450/hour; (2) 3 hours spent researching and drafting this motion and compiling supporting documents and exhibits; (3) 1 hour to review and respond to opposition.

In Opposition, Defendant argues that the Diocese [Presumably Defendant meant Dove] acted with substantial justification in standing on its objections to Plaintiff’s multiplicity of overbroad, harassing, and irrelevant requests and Plaintiff’s request for sanctions should be denied. Defendant argues Plaintiff should be sanctioned for failing to timely meet and confer after Defendant’s supplemental productions and before filing this motion. Defendant’s Opposition provided no amount that it wanted for Plaintiff to be sanctioned. Further, Defendant’s Declaration provided no explanation as to sanctions. Plaintiff did timely meet & confer.

In Reply, Plaintiff argues supplemental responses to 31, 32, 33, 36, 46, 47, and 48 were not provided until after the Plaintiff filed the instant motion. [Presumably Plaintiff meant 26, 27, 28, 31, 41, 42, and 43 because 31, 32, 33, 36, 46, 47, and 48 pertained to Motion 4.]

This Motion was ultimately resolved in Plaintiff’s favor for the most part. Plaintiff is thus awarded reasonable discovery sanctions against Defendant and its counsel of record, jointly and severally, in the amount of $1,000.00, payable within 30 days.

MOTION 6 [9:30am]

RELIEF REQUESTED Plaintiff, John BL Doe, brings the instant Motion to Compel Further Response to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories, Set One No. 46 from Defendant Serbian Orthodox Diocese of Western America pursuant to CCP 2030.300.

Plaintiff requests the Court impost monetary sanctions against Defendant Diocese and its counsel of record in the amount of $1,800.00.

Procedural

Moving Party: Plaintiff, John BL Doe Responding Party: Defendant, Serbian Orthodox Diocese of Western America

Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC Rule 3.1300): Ok 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP 1005(b)): Ok Proper Address (CCP 1013, 1013a, 1013b): Ok

Moving Papers: Motion; Separate Statement [Redacted]; Proposed Order; Aanestad Decl. [Redacted]; Aanestad Decl. [Under Seal]; Separate Statement [Under Seal]

Opposition Papers: Opposition; Hayrapetian Decl. [Redacted]; Separate Statement; Hayrapetian Decl. [Under Seal]; Separate Statement [Under Seal]

[The Court notes that Defendants’ Notice of Lodging Under Seal did not mention a Separate Statement as to this motion being lodged under seal; however, a separate statement was lodged under seal in Opposition.]

Reply Papers: Reply

LEGAL STANDARD - COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES On receipt of a response to interrogatories, the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the propounding party deems that any of the following apply:

(10) An answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete.

(11) An exercise of the option to produce documents under Section 2030.230 is unwarranted or the required specification of those documents is inadequate.

(12) An objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general.

(CCP 2030.300(a).

If a timely motion to compel has been filed, the burden is on the responding party to justify any objection or failure fully to answer. (Coy v. Superior Court of Contra Costa County (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220–221 [addressing a motion to compel further responses to interrogatories]; see also Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255.)

Furthermore, to the extent there is any doubt in whether these records should be discoverable, California’s liberal approach to discovery provides that doubt should be resolved in favor of permitting discovery. (Pacific Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 161, 173.)

The party to whom interrogatories have been propounded shall respond in writing under oath separately to each interrogatory by any of the following:

(1) An answer containing the information sought to be discovered.

(2) An exercise of the party’s option to produce writings.

(3) An objection to the particular interrogatory.

(CCP 2030.210(a).)

ANALYSIS 45-Day Requirement “Unless notice of this motion is given within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or on or before any specific later date to which the propounding party and the responding party have agreed in writing, the propounding party waives any right to compel a further response to the interrogatories.” (CCP 2030.300(c).)

Here, Plaintiff states the motion to compel deadline was on April 17, 2023. The Court is unclear as to how Plaintiff arrived at this date being the deadline to compel further responses. However, Opposition does not argue that April 17, 2023 was not the deadline, and Opposition does not argue that the instant motion is untimely. Therefore, since the instant moving papers were served on April 17, 2023, this motion is thus timely.

Meet and Confer “A motion under subdivision (a) shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.” (CCP 2030.300(b)(1).)

Here, Plaintiff met and conferred. (Decl. Aanestad 10-13, Ex. 8-9.)

TENTATIVE RULING Here, both parties appear to agree that no further response is needed for SROG 46. However, Defendant argues that this motion is moot, and Plaintiff argues that this motion is not moot because sanctions are still at issue. This Court agrees with Plaintiff.

As stated in California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1348(a), “The court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition to the motion was filed, or opposition to the motion was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed.”

Although Defendant correctly argued that it had no obligation to extend Plaintiff’s deadline to move to compel further responses, Defendant’s failure to extend the deadline is what caused Plaintiff to file this motion. As Plaintiff’s Reply accurately noted, it was unknowable whether Defendant would have supplemented its response to SROG 46. If Plaintiff took Defendant’s word for it that Defendant would provide a supplemental response, and if Defendant did not provide the supplemental response, Plaintiff would not be able file a motion to compel further and would be left without relief.

Plaintiff’s motion to compel a further response to SROG 46 is denied as moot; however, the issue of whether sanctions are available for Plaintiff is not moot.

Sanctions “The court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a further response to interrogatories, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (CCP 2030.300(d).)

“The court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition to the motion was filed, or opposition to the motion was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed.” (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule, 3.1348(a).)

In moving paper papers, Plaintiff requested sanctions in the amount of $1,800.00 against the Diocese and its counsel under CCP 2030.300(d). The Aanestad declaration requests sanctions as follows: (1) Billing rate of $450/hour; (2) 3 hours spent researching and drafting this motion and compiling supporting documents and exhibits; (3) 1 hour to review and respond to opposition.

In Opposition, Defendant argues Plaintiff and his counsel should be sanctioned in the amount of $1,800.00 for unsuccessfully and without substantial justification bringing this motion. Defendant requests sanctions as follows: (1) Billing rate of $747/hour; (2) 15 hours preparing this motion; (3) 5 hours preparing for and attending the hearing at the same rate. [Despite the aforementioned rate and time spent, Defendant’s counsel requests $1,800 in sanctions.]

In Reply, Plaintiff argues it is entitled to sanctions under CCP 2025.450(g)(1). The Reply also refers to CRC 3.1348(a).

Here, it is unclear why the Plaintiff initially requested sanctions under 2030.300(d) then in the Reply mentioned sanctions under 2025.450(g)(1). However, Plaintiff’s citation to CRC 3.1348(a) appears to be on point. Even though no further response is needed here by Plaintiff, Plaintiff was forced to file this motion because of Defendant not granting an extension to file a motion to compel further. Plaintiff would have been left with no relief if Defendant had not supplemented its response. Plaintiff is thus awarded reasonable discovery sanctions against Defendant and its counsel of record, jointly and severally, in the amount of $1,300.00, payable within 30 days.

MOTION 7 [9:30am]

RELIEF REQUESTED Plaintiff, John BL Doe, brings the instant Motion to Compel Further Responses from Defendant Serbian Orthodox Diocese of Western America to Requests for Production of Documents, pursuant to 2031.010, 2031.310, et seq.

The instant Motion is based on the Diocese’s failure to provide substantive responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production, Nos. 6, 9, 13, 40, 41, and 42.

Plaintiff requests the Court impose sanctions against Defendant Diocese and its counsel of record in the amount of $1,800.00.

Procedural

Moving Party: Plaintiff, John BL Doe Responding Party: Defendant, Serbian Orthodox Diocese of Western America

Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC Rule 3.1300): Ok 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP 1005(b)): Ok Proper Address (CCP 1013, 1013a, 1013b): Ok

Moving Papers: Motion; Separate Statement [Redacted]; Aanestad Decl. [Redacted]; Proposed Order; Separate Statement [Under Seal]; Aanestad Decl. [Under Seal]

Opposition Papers: Davidovich Decl.; Opposition [Redacted]; Separate Statement [Redacted]; Hayrapetian Decl. [Redacted]; Separate Statement [Under Seal]; Opposition [Under Seal]; Hayrapetian Decl. [Under Seal]

Reply Papers: Reply; Exhibits to Decl. [Under Seal]

LEGAL STANDARD – COMPEL FURTHER – REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION

Under CCP 2017.010, “any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action..., if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” The Section specifically provides that “[d]iscovery may relate to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or of any other party to the action,” and that discovery “may be obtained of the identity and location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter, as well as of the existence, description, nature, custody, condition and location of any document, electronically stored information, tangible thing, or land or other property.”

CCP 2031.310(a) provides that a party demanding a document inspection may move for an order compelling further responses to the demand if the demanding party deems that:

“(1) A statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete.

(2) A representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive.

(3) An objection in the response is without merit or too general.”

Under CCP 2031.310 (b)(1), “The motion shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand.”

The burden is on the moving party to show both relevance to the subject matter and specific facts justifying discovery. (Glenfed Develop. Corp. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1117. ) Once good cause is established by the moving party, the burden then shifts to the responding party to justify any objections made to document disclosure. (See Hartbrodt v. Burke (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 168, 172-174.) ANALYSIS

45-Day Requirement Unless notice of this motion is given within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or on or before any specific later date to which the demanding party and the responding party have agreed in writing, the demanding party waives any right to compel a further response to the demand. (CCP 2031.310(c).)

Here, Plaintiff states the motion to compel deadline was on April 17, 2023. The Court is unclear as to how Plaintiff arrived at this date being the deadline to compel further responses. However, Opposition does not argue that April 17, 2023 was not the deadline, and Opposition does not argue that the instant motion is untimely. Therefore, since the instant moving papers were served on April 17, 2023, this motion is thus timely.

Meet and Confer “The motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.” (CCP 2031.310(b)(2).)

Here, Plaintiff met and conferred. (Decl. Aanestad 10-13, Ex. 8-9.)

TENTATIVE RULING RFP 6 Objections of overbroad and unduly burdensome are sustained. Plaintiff did not carry his burden to show good cause for RFP 6 as phrased. The burden is on the moving party to show both relevance to the subject matter and specific facts justifying discovery. (Glenfed Develop. Corp. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1117. ) Once good cause is established by the moving party, the burden then shifts to the responding party to justify any objections made to document disclosure. (See Hartbrodt v. Burke (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 168, 172-174.)

Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to RFP 6 is DENIED.

TENTATIVE RULING RFP 9 Objections of overbroad and unduly burdensome are sustained. Plaintiff did not carry his burden to show good cause for RFP 9 as phrased. Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to RFP 9 is DENIED.

TENTATIVE RULING RFP 13 Objections of overbroad and unduly burdensome are sustained. Plaintiff did not carry his burden to show good cause for RFP 13 as phrased. Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to RFP 13 is DENIED.

TENTATIVE RULING RFP 40 Objections overruled as to relevance, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, overbroad, unduly burdensome, and oppressive.

As to Defendant’s objections on attorney-client privilege, the clergy-penitent privilege, the work-product doctrine, and other applicable privileges under the California and United States Constitutions, Defendant did not provide a code compliant response.

As stated in CCP 2031.240(b)-(c):

(b) If the responding party objects to the demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling of an item or category of item, the response shall do both of the following:

(1) Identify with particularity any document, tangible thing, land, or electronically stored information falling within any category of item in the demand to which an objection is being made.

(2) Set forth clearly the extent of, and the specific ground for, the objection. If an objection is based on a claim of privilege, the particular privilege invoked shall be stated. If an objection is based on a claim that the information sought is protected work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010), that claim shall be expressly asserted.

(c) (1) If an objection is based on a claim of privilege or a claim that the information sought is protected work product, the response shall provide sufficient factual information for other parties to evaluate the merits of that claim, including, if necessary, a privilege log.

(2) It is the intent of the Legislature to codify the concept of a privilege log as that term is used in California case law. Nothing in this subdivision shall be construed to constitute a substantive change in case law.

(CCP 2031.240(b)-(c).)

Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to RFP 40 is GRANTED. Defendant is ordered to provide a further response, under oath, in a code compliant manner, and to produce the discoverable documents, within 20 days.

TENTATIVE RULING RFP 41 and 42 Objections overruled as to relevance, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, overbroad, unduly burdensome, and oppressive.

As to Defendant’s objections on attorney-client privilege, the clergy-penitent privilege, the work-product doctrine, and other applicable privileges under the California and United States Constitutions, Defendant did not provide a code compliant response in accordance with 2031.240(b)-(c).

Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to RFPs 41 and 42 is GRANTED. Defendant is ordered to provide further responses, under oath, in a code compliant manner, and to produce the discoverable documents, within 20 days.

SANCTIONS RULING Except as provided in subdivision (j), the court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further response to a demand, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. (CCP 2031.310(h).)

Plaintiff seeks sanctions in the amount of $1,800.00 against the Diocese and its counsel for a portion of the costs or preparing, filing, and attending the hearing on this motion. The Aanestad declaration requests sanctions as follows: (1) Billing rate of $450/hour; (2) 3 hours spent researching and drafting this motion and compiling supporting documents and exhibits; (3) 1 hour to review and respond to opposition.

Opposition argues the Diocese acted with substantial justification in standing on its objections to Plaintiff’s multiplicity of overbroad, harassing, and irrelevant requests and Plaintiff’s request for sanctions should be denied. Opposition argues Plaintiff should be sanctioned for failing to timely meet and confer after Defendant’s supplemental productions and before filing this Motion. Defendant’s counsel did not state what amount that Plaintiff should be sanctioned in Defendant’s Opposition. Further, Defendant’s counsel’s declaration did not include a sanctions request.

Defendant’s argument that Plaintiff did not timely meet and confer is not supported by the facts. However, no sanctions are awarded to either party as this Motion was denied in part and granted in part. Further, the notice of motion requested sanctions against the Diocese and not Defendant Christensen. The Court finds that it would be unjust under all the circumstances here to award sanctions to either party.

MOTION 8 [10:00am]

RELIEF REQUESTED Plaintiff, John BL Doe, brings the instant Motion to Compel Further Responses from Defendant Thomas Dove to Requests for Production of Documents, pursuant to 2031.010, 2031.310, et seq.

The instant Motion is based on the Diocese’s failure to provide substantive responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production Nos. 8, 11, 15, 32, 33, 34, 35, and 36. [Presumably, Plaintiff intended to say “…Dove’s failure to…” and not “…the Diocese’s failure to…”]

Plaintiff requests the Court impose monetary sanctions against Defendant Dove and his counsel of record in the amount of $1,800.00.

Procedural

Moving Party: Plaintiff, John BL Doe Responding Party: Defendant, Thomas Dove

Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC Rule 3.1300): Ok 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP 1005(b)): Ok Proper Address (CCP 1013, 1013a, 1013b): Ok

Moving Papers: Motion; Separate Statement [Redacted]; Proposed Order; Aanestad Decl. [Redacted]; Separate Statement [Under Seal]; Aanestad Decl. [Under Seal]

Opposition Papers: Opposition [Redacted]; Separate Statement [Redacted]; Hayrapetian Decl. [Redacted]; Opposition [Under Seal]; Separate Statement [Under Seal]; Hayrapetian Decl. [Under Seal]

Reply Papers: Reply; Exhibits to Decl. [Under Seal]

LEGAL STANDARD – COMPEL FURTHER – REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION

Same legal standard as in Motion 7. ANALYSIS

45-Day Requirement Unless notice of this motion is given within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or on or before any specific later date to which the demanding party and the responding party have agreed in writing, the demanding party waives any right to compel a further response to the demand. (CCP 2031.310(c).)

Here, Plaintiff states the motion to compel deadline was on April 17, 2023. The Court is unclear as to how Plaintiff arrived at this date being the deadline to compel further responses. However, Opposition does not argue that April 17, 2023 was not the deadline, and Opposition does not argue that the instant motion is untimely. Therefore, since the instant moving papers were served on April 17, 2023, this motion is thus timely.

Meet and Confer “The motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.” (CCP 2031.310(b)(2).)

Here, Plaintiff met and conferred. (Decl. Aanestad 10-13, Ex. 8-9.)

TENTATIVE RULING RFP 8, 11, and 15 Objections of overbroad and unduly burdensome are sustained. Plaintiff did not carry his burden to show good cause for RFPs 8, 11, and 15 as phrased. The burden is on the moving party to show both relevance to the subject matter and specific facts justifying discovery. (Glenfed Develop. Corp. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1117. ) Once good cause is established by the moving party, the burden then shifts to the responding party to justify any objections made to document disclosure. (See Hartbrodt v. Burke (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 168, 172-174.)

Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to RFPs 8, 11, and 15 is DENIED.

TENTATIVE RULING RFPs 32, 33, 34, 35, and 36 Objections overruled as to relevance, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, overbroad, unduly burdensome, oppressive, and harassing.

As to Defendant’s objections on attorney-client privilege, the clergy-penitent privilege, the work-product doctrine, and other applicable privileges under the California and United States Constitutions, Defendant did not provide a code compliant response.

As stated in CCP 2031.240(b)-(c):

(b) If the responding party objects to the demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling of an item or category of item, the response shall do both of the following:

(1) Identify with particularity any document, tangible thing, land, or electronically stored information falling within any category of item in the demand to which an objection is being made.

(2) Set forth clearly the extent of, and the specific ground for, the objection. If an objection is based on a claim of privilege, the particular privilege invoked shall be stated. If an objection is based on a claim that the information sought is protected work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010), that claim shall be expressly asserted.

(c) (1) If an objection is based on a claim of privilege or a claim that the information sought is protected work product, the response shall provide sufficient factual information for other parties to evaluate the merits of that claim, including, if necessary, a privilege log.

(2) It is the intent of the Legislature to codify the concept of a privilege log as that term is used in California case law. Nothing in this subdivision shall be construed to constitute a substantive change in case law. (CCP 2031.240(b)-(c).)

Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to RFPs 32, 33, 34, 35, and 36 is GRANTED. Defendant is ordered to provide a further response, under oath, in a code compliant manner, and to produce the discoverable documents, within 20 days.

SANCTIONS RULING Except as provided in subdivision (j), the court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further response to a demand, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. (CCP 2031.310(h).)

Plaintiff seeks sanctions in the amount of $1,800.00 against Dove and its counsel for a portion of the costs or preparing, filing, and attending the hearing on this motion. The Aanestad declaration requests sanctions as follows: (1) Billing rate of $450/hour; (2) 3 hours spent researching and drafting this motion and compiling supporting documents and exhibits; (3) 1 hour to review and respond to opposition.

Opposition argues Fr. Theophil acted with substantial justification in standing on his objections to Plaintiff’s multiplicity of overbroad, harassing, and irrelevant requests and Plaintiff’s request for sanctions should be denied. Opposition argues Plaintiff should be sanctioned for failing to timely meet and confer after Defendant’s supplemental productions and before filing this Motion. Defendant’s counsel did not state what amount that Plaintiff should be sanctioned in Defendant’s Opposition. Further, Defendant’s counsel’s declaration did not include a sanctions request.

Defendant’s argument that Plaintiff did not timely meet and confer is not supported by the facts. However, no sanctions are awarded to either party as this Motion was denied in part and granted in part. Further, the notice of motion requested sanctions against the Diocese and not Defendant Christensen. The Court finds that it would be unjust under all the circumstances here to award sanctions to either party.

Case Number: *******2219 Hearing Date: April 14, 2023 Dept: E

Hearing Date: 04/14/2023 – 10:00am Case No: *******2219 Trial Date: 08/07/2023 Case Name: JOHN BL DOE v. SERBIAN ORTHODOX DIOCESE OF WESTERN AMERICA, et al.

TENTATIVE RULING ON MOTIONS TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES

Moving Party: Defendants, Serbian Orthodox Diocese of Western America, The Brotherhood of St. Herman of Alaska, John Christensen, and Thomas Dove (collectively Defendants) Responding Party: Plaintiff, John Doe

Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC Rule 3.1300):Ok 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP 1005(b)): Ok Proper Address: Ok

Moving Papers: Motion; Decl. Mari F. Henderson; Proposed Order; Separate Statement; Notice of Lodging Under Seal; Joint Stipulation and Protective Order;

Opposition Papers: Opposition; Separate Statement; Jane E. Reilly Declaration [Only document not filed under seal]

Reply Papers: Reply; Supplemental Separate Statement; Notice of Lodging Under Seal; Supplemental Declaration of Mari F. Henderson

RELIEF REQUESTED Defendants move this Court for an order compelling Plaintiff, John BL Doe, to provide by April 28, 2023 full and complete responses, as well as all responsive documents, to Special Interrogatories (Set One) Nos. 5, 13, 14, 16, 17 and Requests for Production Nos. 23, 25, and 26.

This motion is made pursuant to Sections 2030.300 and 2031.320.

Defendants request that Doe and his counsel, Manly, Stewart, & Finaldi, be sanctioned and ordered to pay Defendants’ attorneys’ fees for their abuse of the discovery process under CCP 2023.010 and 2023.030.

BACKGROUND

Defendants propounded the instant discovery on August 30, 2022. Plaintiff provided responses on October 17, 2022. Defendants’ counsel sent a meet and confer letter on November 16, 2022. Plaintiff provided supplemental responses to the instant discovery on December 23, 2022. The instant motion was filed and served by email on February 6, 2023.

Preliminary Matter A motion must be brought separately as to each discovery method at issue. The instant Motion should have been filed as two separate motions and two filing fees paid. Instead, Defendants filed only one motion to compel further responses to two different discovery instruments: special interrogatories and requests for production. “[P]ayment of filing fees is both mandatory and jurisdictional.” (Hu vs. Silgan Containers Corp. (1999) 70 Cal. App. 4^th 1261, 1269.)

Although the Opposition argues that the motion should be denied on the grounds that one motion was filed instead of two, the Court does not find this argument availing. Plaintiff cited no case law to support its argument that the motion should be denied under this theory. In fact, the Plaintiff stated, without citing any case law, that this Court has the discretion to deny Defendants’ motion on this ground. The Court will not deny this motion on these grounds.

Defendant is ordered to pay the clerk the necessary filing fees forthwith.

ANALYSIS 45-Day Requirement “Unless notice of this motion is given within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or on or before any specific later date to which the propounding party and the responding party have agreed in writing, the propounding party waives any right to compel a further response to the interrogatories.” (CCP 2030.300(c).)

Here, the instant motion is timely.

Meet and Confer “A motion under subdivision (a) shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.” (CCP 2030.300(b)(1).)

“A meet and confer declaration in support of a motion shall state facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion.” (CCP 2016.040.)

Here, moving party met and conferred about the responses from Plaintiff in its November 16, 2022. (Decl. Henderson, 7, Ex. F.)

In Opposition, Plaintiff argues that although Defendants sent a meet and confer about the initial responses, Defendants did not meet and confer with Plaintiff’s counsel regarding the Supplemental Responses that were provided after the meet and confer.

Further in Opposition, Plaintiff argues that this motion raises issues that Defendants never addressed in their November 16, 2022 letter, or at any other time.

[The Court notes that it is uncertain what Plaintiff is referring to when Plaintiff argues that this motion raises issues that Defendants never addressed in their November 16, 2022 meet and confer letter. Plaintiff does not point out what issues Defendants did not address.]

In Reply, Defendants point out how Plaintiff cites no law that Defendants were obligated to meet and confer again after receiving supplemental responses. Further in Reply, Defendants argue that Defendants did more than send a single letter prior to filing this motion; Defendants argue that they met and conferred in person, sent a follow-up letter, and emailed regarding specific defects in Plaintiff’s discovery responses.

Here, the Court finds that the meet and confer requirement was met.

LEGAL STANDARD - COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES On receipt of a response to interrogatories, the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the propounding party deems that any of the following apply:

(1) An answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete.

(2) An exercise of the option to produce documents under Section 2030.230 is unwarranted or the required specification of those documents is inadequate.

(3) An objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general.

(CCP 2030.300(a).

If a timely motion to compel has been filed, the burden is on the responding party to justify any objection or failure fully to answer. (Coy v. Superior Court (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220–221 [addressing a motion to compel further responses to interrogatories]; see also Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255.)

Furthermore, to the extent there is any doubt in whether these records should be discoverable, California’s liberal approach to discovery provides that doubt should be resolved in favor of permitting discovery. (Pacific Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 161, 173.)

The party to whom interrogatories have been propounded shall respond in writing under oath separately to each interrogatory by any of the following:

(1) An answer containing the information sought to be discovered.

(2) An exercise of the party’s option to produce writings.

(3) An objection to the particular interrogatory.

(CCP 2030.210(a).)

LEGAL STANDARD – COMPEL FURTHER – REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION

Under CCP 2017.010, “any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action..., if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” The Section specifically provides that “[d]iscovery may relate to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or of any other party to the action,” and that discovery “may be obtained of the identity and location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter, as well as of the existence, description, nature, custody, condition and location of any document, electronically stored information, tangible thing, or land or other property.”

CCP 2031.310(a) provides that a party demanding a document inspection may move for an order compelling further responses to the demand if the demanding party deems that:

“(1) A statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete.

(2) A representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive.

(3) An objection in the response is without merit or too general.”

Under CCP 2031.310 (b)(1), “The motion shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand.”

The burden is on the moving party to show both relevance to the subject matter and specific facts justifying discovery. (Glenfed Develop. Corp. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1117. Once good cause is established by the moving party, the burden then shifts to the responding party to justify any objections made to document disclosure. (See Hartbrodt v. Burke (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 168, 172-174.)

DISCUSSION

The Court notes that all moving, opposing, and reply papers were filed under seal – with the exception of the Opposition Declaration of Jane E. Reilly. Therefore, the Court will simply refer to the relevant interrogatories/requests by number and will not be restating the interrogatories/requests, the responses, and the supplemental responses.

In Opposition the Plaintiff argued that the Court should not consider Defendants’ arguments about a privilege log or communications with members of the clergy because these arguments were only in Defendants’ moving papers but were not in Defendants’ separate statement. The Court notes it does not find Plaintiff’s argument on this point convincing.

Further, Defendants argue that Doe waived his claim of clergy-penitent privilege by voluntarily disclosing these clergy-penitent communications to his counselor. The Court does not find Defendants’ argument on this point convincing.

TENTATIVE RULING SROG 5

Plaintiff’s Objections to SROG 5 are overruled. Defendants’ motion to compel further responses to SROG 5 is GRANTED, and Plaintiff is to provide verified, code compliant further responses under oath within 20 days of this hearing.

TENTATIVE RULING SROG 13

Defendants’ motion to compel further response to SROG 13 is GRANTED IN PART with the exception that the Court is editing SROG 13 to state, “IDENTIFY all phone numbers and accounts (including without limitation all email and social media accounts) through which YOU have sent or received any COMMUNICATION RELATING TO the ALLEGED INCIDENTS from March 2013 to the present, including but not limited to the name of the service provider, YOUR username, the date of creation, the date on which YOU last used the account or phone number, and (if applicable) the date on which YOU disabled or otherwise terminated the account.”

Plaintiff’s Objections to SROG 13 are overruled, except to the extent that the Court limited the language of SROG 13 as indicated above.

Plaintiff is to provide verified, code compliant further responses under oath within 20 days of this hearing.

TENTATIVE RULING SROG 14 Defendants’ motion to compel further responses to SROG 14 is DENIED. The privacy of third parties outweighs the possibility that this interrogatory could lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Second, the communications to and from family members is not likely under Plaintiff’s custody and control and not discoverable through him. Third, Plaintiff’s objection as to the interrogatory being overly broad is well-taken.

TENTATIVE RULING SROG 16 Plaintiff’s Objections to SROG 16 are overruled. Defendants’ motion to compel further responses to SROG 16 is GRANTED, and Plaintiff is to provide verified, code compliant further responses under oath within 20 days of this hearing.

TENTATIVE RULING SROG 17 Plaintiff’s Objections to SROG 17 are overruled. Cases that Plaintiff cites in support of the motion that religious affiliations are private are factually distinguishable from this case. Defendants’ motion to compel further responses to SROG 17 is GRANTED, and Plaintiff is to provide verified, code compliant responses under oath within 20 days.

TENTATIVE RULING RPD 23 Plaintiff’s objections to RPD 23 are all overruled except as to the attorney/client, work-product, and clergy-penitent privileges.

CCP 2031.240 states:

(a) If only part of an item or category of item in a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is objectionable, the response shall contain a statement of compliance, or a representation of inability to comply with respect to the remainder of that item or category.

(b) If the responding party objects to the demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling of an item or category of item, the response shall do both of the following:

(1) Identify with particularity any document, tangible thing, land, or electronically stored information falling within any category of item in the demand to which an objection is being made.

(2) Set forth clearly the extent of, and the specific ground for, the objection. If an objection is based on a claim of privilege, the particular privilege invoked shall be stated. If an objection is based on a claim that the information sought is protected work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010), that claim shall be expressly asserted.

(c) (1) If an objection is based on a claim of privilege or a claim that the information sought is protected work product, the response shall provide sufficient factual information for other parties to evaluate the merits of that claim, including, if necessary, a privilege log.

(2) It is the intent of the Legislature to codify the concept of a privilege log as that term is used in California case law. Nothing in this subdivision shall be construed to constitute a substantive change in case law.

(CCP 2031.240(a)-(c).)

Defendants argued on page 11 of their motion in relevant part:

In correspondence with Doe’s counsel on October 7, 2022, Defendants proposed both parties produce privilege logs to reflect documents withheld or redacted on privilege grounds prior to April 11, 2022, the date Doe filed his complaint. Henderson Decl. Ex. W. This proposal is consistent with standard litigation practice. See, e.g., Ritchie v. Sempra Energy (S.D. Cal. Aug. 4, 2014, No. 10CV1513-CAB(KSC)) 2014 WL 12638874, at *2 [parties rarely allowed “to unilaterally dispense with pre-complaint logging”]. Doe subsequently produced a privilege log reflecting communications with a separate attorney in February 2020, but failed to log any communications with any member of Manly, Steward & Finaldi, his current firm. Henderson Decl. Ex. L. Doe began communicating with his current firm at least as early as March 2020, more than two years prior to filing his complaint. Henderson Decl. Ex.P. He should be ordered to supplement his privilege log and log all communications with Manly, Stewart & Finaldi prior to April 11, 2022, along with any other documents he is withholding on privilege grounds.¹

(Defs. Mot. p. 11, footnote 1 citation omitted.)

Plaintiff is ordered to provide a supplemental, verified, code compliant privilege log for clergy privileged and for attorney-client privilege and work product for responsive documents to this request between former counsel and current counsel of Manly, Stewart & Finaldi prior to April 11, 2022.

Defendants’ motion to compel further responses to RPD 23 is GRANTED, with the limitations discussed herein, and Plaintiff is ordered to provide further responses that are verified and code compliant.

TENTATIVE RULING RPD 25 and 26 Plaintiff’s objections to RPDs 25 and 26 are overruled except to the extent the requests seek premature disclosure of expert opinion and except to the extent these requests seek attorney-client or work product privileges.

Plaintiff is ordered to provide a supplemental, verified, code compliant privilege log for clergy privileged and for attorney-client privilege and work product for responsive documents to these requests between former counsel and current counsel of Manly, Stewart & Finaldi prior to April 11, 2022.

Defendants’ motion to compel further responses to RPD 25 and 26 is GRANTED, with the limitations discussed herein, and Plaintiff is ordered to provide further responses that are verified and code compliant.

Defendants are also reminded to pay the extra filing fee forthwith.

SANCTIONS “The court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a further response to interrogatories, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (CCP 2030.300(d).)

Except as provided in subdivision (j), the court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further response to a demand, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. (CCP 2031.310(h).)

As a preliminary matter, the notice of motion doesn’t specify, as required, how much Defendants are requesting in sanctions.

In Defendants’ motion on page 13, Defendants request that Doe and his counsel should be ordered to pay Defendants’ attorneys’ fees for bringing this motion in the amount of $15,000.00. In Opposition, Plaintiff argues Defendants are not entitled to sanctions because Plaintiff acted with substantial justification because he provided code compliant responses and logged appropriate objections and voluntarily supplemented his initial responses.

Given movants’ failure to properly Notice the sanctions request and given further that some of Plaintiff’s points are upheld here, the Court finds that it would be unjust to award sanctions to either party.