Defendant's Motion to Bifurcate Trial
Stanislaus County - Civil - https://www.stanislaus.courts.ca.gov/online-services/tentative-rulings/civil-tentati ve-rulings Civil Tentative Rulings June 12, 2026
The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge John R. Mayne in Department 21: ***There are no Tentative Rulings for Department 21***
The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge Stacy P. Speiller in Department 22:
CV-23-002593 - MILLER ARMS COMPANY INC vs CITY OF RIVERBANK - Defendant's Motion to Bifurcate Trial - GRANTED, and unopposed.
On April 23, 2026, Defendants submitted a motion to bifurcate trial. Defendants seek an order bifurcating the liability and damages phases of trial. On June 1, 2026, Plaintiff submitted a notice of non-opposition. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 598, the Court GRANTS Defendants' unopposed motion to bifurcate trial.
CV-25-012211 - NORRIS, PAUL vs BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY - Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents - GRANTED.
For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS the motion to compel. Defendant shall produce unredacted copies of the Guerin reports and draft reports by June 18, 2026, at 5 pm. Defendant shall produce relevant, non-privileged documents in response to RFP Set 4 Request Nos. 24, 28, 29, 34; RFP Set 6 Request Nos. 8 and 13; and RFP Set 7 Request No. 2 by July 13, 2026, at 5 pm.
For information over which Defendant asserts privilege, Defendant shall serve a privilege log by July 13, 2026, at 5 pm. The privilege log shall include at least the following information: entry numbers (consecutively numbered starting with 1), the date of the communication/work product, the author/sender, the recipient(s), the type of privilege asserted, whether the document is withheld or redacted, the description of the communication/information, and asterisks following the names of lawyers. Defendant shall identify documents responsive to each request by bates number and serve such identification on Plaintiff by August 12, 2026. All other relief denied. Moving party to submit a proposed order that conforms to this ruling within five court days.
Redacted reports
A party that seeks to protect communications from disclosure based upon the attorney-client privilege must establish the preliminary facts necessary to support its exercise--i.e., a communication made in the course of an attorney-client relationship." (City of Petaluma v. Superior Court (2016) 248 Cal.App.4th 1023, 1032
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
Co. v. Superior Court (1985) 174 Cal.App.3d 1142, 1149.) "Evidence Code section 912, subdivision (a) specifically provides that waiver of the privilege occurs when any holder of the privilege 'has disclosed a significant part of the communication or has consented to such disclosure made by anyone.'" (Ibid.) "[A]n implied waiver occurs where the plaintiff has placed in issue a communication which goes to the heart of the claim in controversy." (Ibid.)
Defendant argues that there is an attorney-client relationship between Defendant and Ms. Guerin because Ms. Guerin was expected to use her legal expertise in creating findings of fact for the report into Plaintiff's retaliation claim. The question of whether the report itself is a privileged communication is moot because Defendant has waived privilege over the report itself as well as Ms. Guerin's findings by putting the investigation and findings at issue in the litigation and also by producing the full report and draft reports with only a few redactions. Defendant next argues that the underlying communications between CSU employees and in-house counsel that