Petitioner Tawna Veniot's Motion to Compel Responses to Requests for Production; Petitioner Tawna Veniot's Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories; Petitioner Tawna Veniot's Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories; Petitioner Tawna Veniot's Motion to Deem Requests for Admission Admitted
Browse all Motion to Compel Further Responses rulings statewide →
were communicated to Ms. Guerin are privileged because the communications were confidential and the primary goal of the communications was to obtain or provide legal advice. Along with its opposition to the instant motion, Defendant provided a privilege log of redactions made to the draft Guerin Report. The majority of the redacted information has been waived pursuant to Evidence Code section 912 and/or via implied waiver. Defendant produced nearly all of the report yet seeks to redact information under headings such as "Reasons for Alleged Adverse Actions" and "Placing Paul Norris on Administrative Leave of Absence" and "Paul Norris's Non-Retention."
In another example, in the first entry on page four of the privilege log, Defendant has redacted information regarding what appears to a request to talk about facts related to Mr. Norris's non-retention. Such information goes to the hearing of the claim in controversy and thus privilege is waived. It is well settled "that the law does not permit a party to use a confidentiality privilege as both a shield and a sword." (Ford v. City of Los Angeles (2020) 47 Cal.App.5th 277, 286.) Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the motion to compel Defendant to produce unredacted copies of the reports and draft reports.
Requests for Production Defendant agreed to supplement certain responses and to identify responsive documents by bates number. As to RFP Set 4 Requests Nos. 1 and 2, it appears the relevant overtime records have been produced. Request No. 24 seeks Ms. Strottman's written reports and/or complaints relating to Plaintiff or Plaintiff's conduct or behavior. Such reports or complaints are not privileged simply because Ms. Strottman is an attorney. To the extent such documents exist, they are relevant and should be produced and/or identified on a privilege log.
Request No. 28 seeks documents relating to key persons' job duties and/or job classifications. Such documents are relevant and should be produced. Request No. 29 seeks documents relating to why one of Plaintiff's subordinates moved to a different role. Such documents are relevant to the extent they relate to Plaintiff and/or Plaintiff's conduct or behavior and should be produced. Request No. 34 seeks documents relating to an investigation pertaining to Plaintiff's job performance. Such documents are relevant and should be produced.
RFP Set 5 Requests Nos. 4-7 seek offer letters Ms. Knott received for roles she held before and after working for Plaintiff and applications Ms. Knott filled. Such documents do not appear relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. RFP Set 6 Requests No. 5 seeks a report related to a separate investigation into a separate employee's complaints. Such a report does not appear relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant has agreed to produce documents in response to Request No.
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?”
8. Request Nos. 9-12 seek several text messages related to key personnel's employment. The requests are overbroad and do not appear relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant has agreed to produce the text message sought in Request No.
13. Requests Nos. 15-16 seek documents relating to a site visit that multiple deponents have testified is unrelated to the instant case. RFP Set 7 Request No. 2 seeks communications between certain individuals relating to Plaintiff. Such communications are relevant and should be produced. Communications are not privileged simply because one party is an attorney. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the motion to compel as to RFP Set 4 Requests Nos. 24, 28, 29, 34; RFP Set 6 Requests Nos. 8 and 13; and RFP Set 7 Request No.
2. Defendant shall produce responsive, non-privileged documents by July 13, 2026, at 5 pm. For any 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: 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. PR-25-000754 - In the Matter of THE GEORGE GARY VENIOT LIVING TRUST - a) Petitioner Tawna Veniot's Motion to Compel Responses from Respondent, Dana Garth, to Requests for Production of Documents and for Monetary Sanctions Against Respondent for Misuse of the Discovery Process - GRANTED in part and denied in
part, and unopposed. b) Petitioner Tawna Veniot's Motion to Compel Responses from Respondent, Dana Garth, to Special Interrogatories and for Monetary Sanctions Against Dana Garth for Misuse of the Discovery Process - GRANTED in part and denied in part, and unopposed. c) Petitioner Tawna Veniot's Motion to Compel Responses from Respondent, Dana Garth, to Form Interrogatories and for Monetary Sanctions Against Dana Garth for Misuse of the Discovery Process - GRANTED in part and denied in part, and unopposed. d) Petitioner Tawna Veniot's Motion to Deem Requests for Admission Admitted and for Monetary Sanctions Against Respondent, Dana Garth, for Misuse of the Discovery Process - GRANTED in part and denied in part, and unopposed. a) Requests for Production The Court finds that Respondent has entirely failed to respond to the subject discovery and that all objections have been waived. (Code Civ.
Proc. Sec. 2031.300(a).) Therefore, Petitioner is entitled to an order compelling Respondent to provide verified responses, without objection, to Petitioner's Requests for Production, Set One, within 21 days. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 2030.300(b).) The Court further finds that Petitioner is entitled to an award of monetary sanctions in connection with this motion. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec.Sec. 2031.300(c), 2023.010 et seq.) Therefore, monetary sanctions in the amount of $694.50 are awarded against Respondent Dana Garth, payable to Petitioner's counsel of record, Fores Macko Johnston & Chartrand.
The Court declines to set a timeline for the payment of sanctions, as that is unnecessary. (See Newland v. Superior Court (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 608, 610, as modified (Dec. 6, 1995) .) Petitioner's alternative request for an order rendering judgment by default against Respondent and dismissing any objections or cross-petitions is DENIED. That sanction is disproportionately punitive at this stage of the proceedings. Petitioner is directed to submit a new proposed order within five court days that is consistent with this ruling. b) Special Interrogatories The Court finds that Respondent has entirely failed to respond to the subject discovery and all objections have been waived. (Code Civ.
Proc. Sec. 2030.290(a).) Therefore, Petitioner is entitled to an order compelling Respondent to provide verified responses, without objection, to Petitioner's Special Interrogatories, Set One, within 21 days. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 2030.290(b).) The Court further finds that Petitioner is entitled to an award of monetary sanctions in connection with this motion. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec.Sec. 2030.290(c), 2023.010 et seq.) Therefore, monetary sanctions in the amount of $604.50 are awarded against Respondent Dana Garth, payable to Petitioner's counsel of record, Fores Macko Johnston & Chartrand.
The Court declines to set a timeline for the payment of sanctions, as that is unnecessary. (See Newland v. Superior Court (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 608, 610, as modified (Dec. 6, 1995) .) Petitioner's alternative request for an order rendering judgment by default against Respondent and dismissing any objections or cross-petitions is DENIED. That sanction is disproportionately punitive at this stage of the proceedings. Petitioner is directed to submit a new proposed order within five court days that is consistent with this ruling. c) Form Interrogatories The Court finds that Respondent has entirely failed to respond to the subject discovery and all objections have been waived. (Code Civ.
Proc. Sec. 2030.290(a).) Therefore, Petitioner is entitled to an order compelling Respondent to provide verified responses, without objection, to Petitioner's Form Interrogatories, Set One, within 21 days. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 2030.290(b).) The Court further finds that Petitioner is entitled to an award of monetary sanctions in connection with this motion. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec.Sec. 2030.290(c), 2023.010 et seq.) Therefore, monetary sanctions in the amount of $784.50 are awarded against Respondent Dana Garth, payable to Petitioner's counsel of record, Fores Macko Johnston & Chartrand.
The Court declines to set a timeline for the payment of sanctions, as that is unnecessary. (See Newland v. Superior Court (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 608, 610, as modified (Dec. 6, 1995) .) Petitioner's alternative request for an order rendering judgment by default against Respondent and dismissing
any objections or cross-petitions is DENIED. That sanction is disproportionately punitive at this stage of the proceedings. Petitioner is directed to submit a new proposed order within five court days that is consistent with this ruling. d) Requests for Admissions Petitioner submitted the instant motion supported by a declaration. Petitioner states that it propounded requests for admissions on Respondent and received no response. Therefore, Respondent requests that the matters set forth in the Requests for Admissions, Set One, be deemed admitted. "If a party to whom requests for admission are directed fails to serve a timely response . . . [t]he requesting party may move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted[.]" (Code Civ.
Proc., Sec. 2033.280.) "The court shall make this order, unless it finds that the party to whom the requests for admission have been directed has served, before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2033.280(c).) Accordingly, Petitioner's unopposed request to deem matters admitted is GRANTED pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Sec. 2033.280(b). The truth of any matters specified in Defendant's Requests for Admissions, Set One, are deemed admitted, without objection. (See Code Civ.
Proc., Sec. 2033.280(a)??(b).) Petitioner is entitled to an award of monetary sanctions in conjunction with this motion. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec.Sec. 2033.280(c), 2023.010 et seq.) Therefore, monetary sanctions in the amount of $634.50 are awarded against Respondent Dana Garth, payable to Petitioner's counsel of record, Fores Macko Johnston & Chartrand. The Court declines to set a timeline for the payment of sanctions, as that is unnecessary. (See Newland v. Superior Court (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 608, 610, as modified (Dec. 6, 1995) .)
Petitioner's alternative request for an order rendering judgment by default against Respondent and dismissing any objections or cross-petitions is DENIED. That sanction is disproportionately punitive at this stage of the proceedings. Petitioner is directed to submit a new proposed order within five court days that is consistent with this ruling. The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge Clifford Tong in Department 23: CV-24-001829 - DANIELYAN, INESA vs GENERAL MOTORS LLC - Plaintiff Inesa Danielyan's Motion for Attorney's Fees, Costs and Expenses - GRANTED, in the reduced amount of $44,995.72.
The Court exercises its discretion in determining what award is justified in this context. (Goglin v. BMW of North America, LLC (2016) 4 Cal.App.5 th 462.) Attorney's Fees Hours Reasonably Worked - Regarding the lodestar fees calculation, the Court finds, on the basis of Counsel's declarations and supporting exhibits, including time records, and the Court's own review of the time entries submitted by Plaintiffs' counsel, as well as the Court's experience and general familiarity with the amount of time reasonably allocated to the types of tasks described herein, that the hours claimed were reasonably incurred and substantially contributed to the ultimate successful result. (Ketchum v.
Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1132; Horsford v. Board of Trustees of Calif. State University (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 359, 394.) However, the Court determines that a portion of the time claimed by Plaintiffs' counsel herein should be reduced as follows: 1.2 hours billed by Hovanes Margarian for "communication with defendant" between 3/9/24 and 3/9/25 as improper block billing which does not provide sufficient specificity for the Court to assess the reasonableness of the time incurred in relationship to the task(s) described 1.5 hours billed by Patrick Kimball for "communication with defendant" between 10/1/24 and 3/5/26 as improper block billing which does not provide sufficient specificity for the Court to assess the reasonableness of the time incurred in relationship to the task(s) described 2.3 hours claimed by Hovanes Margarian in connection with "review" of various documents prepared by other billers in this matter, as duplicative.