ERICA ROBINSON VS. DORATRIZ PADILLA, ET AL

Plaintiff asks for her Requests for Admissions directed to defendant Padilla to be deemed admitted, or alternatively for objections to be deemed waived and further responses without objection to be compelled. Padilla’s supplemental responses, served on May 14, 2026, prior to

June 17, 2026 Law and Motion Calendar Judge Nicole S. Healy Department 28 ________________________________________________________________________ the filing of this Motion, admit or deny each request, subject in some cases to objections. (See Separate Statement iso Plaintiff’s Mot., at pp. 2-22.) These responses substantially comply with Section 2033.220, which requires each answer to be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits and to:

(1) Admit so much of the matter involved in the request as is true, either as expressed in the request itself or as reasonably and clearly qualified by the responding party.

(2) Deny so much of the matter involved in the request as is untrue.

(3) Specify so much of the matter involved in the request as to the truth of which the responding party lacks sufficient information or knowledge.

(Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.220 subds. (a)-(b).)

The request for an order deeming the requests admitted is therefore not supported. Plaintiff has not shown that any meet and confer attempt was made following service of supplemental responses. (See generally Zaharoff Decl.) Where an extension of time to respond was requested and denied, an objection-only response was served by the deadline and substantially codecompliant substantive responses were served nine days later, Plaintiff has not demonstrated that objections are waived or that there is good cause for further responses to be compelled.

D. Requests for Production of Documents (RFP), Set Two

Plaintiff argues that the court should overrule Padilla’s objections to RFP Nos. 3-4. RFP no. 3 seeks “DOCUMENTS sufficient to show all transactions in which YOU represented the seller in the sale of a property for over $1 million prior to 2023.” (Separate Statement iso Plaintiff’s Mot., at p. 24.) Padilla’s supplemental response to RFP No. 3, served on May 13, 2026, provides that subject to objections: “Defendant will comply, in part, by producing pursuant to the Stipulated Protective Order a list and summary of Responding Party’s transaction history with eXp.” (Id., at p. 25.)

Similarly, RFP No. 4 seeks “DOCUMENTS sufficient to show all transactions prior to 2023 in which YOU represented the purchaser in the purchase of a property for over $1 million prior to 2023. (Id., at p. 26.) Padilla’s supplemental response agrees to comply in part “by producing pursuant to the Stipulated Protective Order a list and summary of Responding Party’s transaction history with eXp.” (Id., at p. 27.)

Defendant argues that the Motion is defective under Code of Civil Procedure, sections 2031.010, et seq. and 2033.010, et seq., as to these requests because plaintiff did not meet and confer as to the substantive responses provided before moving to compel. Plaintiff has not demonstrated any meet and confer effort following service of the supplemental responses received May 13, 2026, prior to the filing of the Motion. (Zaharoff Decl., ¶¶ 11-12.) Section 2031.310 requires a motion to compel further responses to a request for production to “be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310 subd. (a).) “A meet and confer declaration in support of a motion shall state facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt, either in person, by telephone, or by

June 17, 2026 Law and Motion Calendar Judge Nicole S. Healy Department 28 ________________________________________________________________________ videoconference, to informally resolve each issue presented by the motion.” (Id., § 2016.040 subd. (a).) The only meet and confer attempt that is demonstrated here is a May 7 letter addressing defendant’s objections, which does not satisfy this requirement. (Zaharoff Decl., ¶ 11.)

If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the court. Thereafter, Padilla’s counsel shall prepare a written order consistent with the court’s ruling for the court’s signature, pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1312 and Local Rule 3.403(b)(iv), and provide written notice of the ruling to all parties who have appeared in this action. The order should be e-filed only, do not email or mail a hard copy to the court.

June 17, 2026 Law and Motion Calendar Judge Nicole S. Healy Department 28 ________________________________________________________________________

02:00 PM LINE 3 23-CIV-03393 ERICA ROBINSON VS. DORATRIZ PADILLA, ET AL

ERICA ROBINSON NIALL P. MCCARTHY DORATRIZ PADILLA PETER L. ISOLA

Plaintiffs Motion to Compel as to Amended Deposition Subpoena for Production of Business Records

TENTATIVE RULING:

The unopposed Motion filed by plaintiff Erica Robinson, as proposed Successor-in- Interest to the Estate of Martin J. Lanfranco and as executor of the Martin J. Lanfranco Revocable Trust for an order compelling non-party Keller Williams Peninsula Estates to comply with the Deposition Subpoena for Production of Business Records, as amended and served on Keller Williams on March 25, 2026 is GRANTED.

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions in the amount of $2,560 is GRANTED. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.450, subd. (g)(1).)

A.

Background

Plaintiff alleges that her decedent Martin J. Lanfranco suffered financial elder abuse by defendants Doratriz Padilla and eXp Realty of California arising from the circumstances surrounding real estate sales transactions involving Lanfranco’s primary residence. Plaintiff contends that Padilla lacked relevant experience, and that evidence of her prior experience is directly related to plaintiff’s causes of action raised in the fourth amended complaint (4AC) filed on October 31, 2024.

According to the 4AC, before Padilla worked as a realtor with defendant eXp Realty she was employed as a realtor with Keller Williams for five years. Plaintiff’s subpoena initially requested documents reflecting or related to Padilla’s performance, transaction history, commission and earnings history, and any complaints, awards, or discipline received while at Keller Williams. (Declaration of Regina Wang iso Motion to Compel Keller William’s deposition testimony, filed May 1, 2026, ¶ 2, and exh. A.) Padilla objected to the subpoena and Keller Williams subsequently joined in her objections. (Id., ¶ 4.)

After the parties met and conferred, plaintiff offered to narrow the requests and subsequently served a narrower subpoena seeking only documents sufficient to show Padilla’s transaction history, commissions, and earning history. (Wang Decl., ¶ 6.) Plaintiff served and emailed Keller Williams via their counsel a new subpoena with a narrower request per the parties’ meet and confer (id., ¶¶ 7-9, exh. E) but Keller Williams has not responded either to the subpoena or counsel’s attempts to meet and confer further. (Id., ¶ 9.)