Kristin Gordon vs. Mendocino Area Parks Association

34-2022-00322703-CU-OE-GDS: Kristin Gordon vs. Mendocino Area Parks Association, a California non-profit corporation 04/14/2025 Hearing on Motion to Compel Responses and Production to Her Document Demand, Set Two in Department 53

Tentative Ruling

NOTICE: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to “Public Notice – Civil Division Expansion of Law and Motion Calendar” any oral arguments regarding this tentative ruling will be heard in Department 25, located at 720 9th Street, Sacramento, CA, the Hon. Julie G. Yap presiding. Should argument be requested by either party, the requesting party must call the Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-2615, request the hearing, and notify the opposing party of the location and time of hearing pursuant to Local Rule 1.06.

The Court encourages parties to appear remotely for the hearing on the tentative ruling through the Court’s Zoom Application. But, any party wishing to appear in person may do so, provided that party notifies the Court by 4:00 the Court day before the hearing.

The parties may join the Zoom session for hearing on the tentative ruling by audio and/or video through the following link:

https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept25

SIP Address:

16113421868@sip.zoomgov.com

(833) 568-8864

ID: 16113421868

Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf. Parties may contact Court-Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-13.Pdf

A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required

34-2022-00322703-CU-OE-GDS: Kristin Gordon vs. Mendocino Area Parks Association, a California non-profit corporation 04/14/2025 Hearing on Motion to Compel Responses and Production to Her Document Demand, Set Two in Department 53

to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.

Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will be forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided

The notice of motion does not provide notice of the Court’s tentative ruling system as required by Local Rule 1.06(D). Counsel for moving party is ordered to notify Defendant’s counsel immediately of the tentative ruling system and to be available at the hearing, in person or by telephone, in the event Defendant appears without following the procedures set forth in Local Rule 1.06(B). Plaintiff Kristin Gordon’s (“Plaintiff”) motion to compel responses to her requests for production, set two, and request for monetary sanctions is ruled upon as follows.

Background

This is an employment action. Plaintiff asserts causes of action against the California Department of Parks and Recreation (“Defendant”) for discrimination, harassment, and retaliation based on Plaintiff’s disability, age and gender. Plaintiff propounded requests for production of documents, set two, on Defendant on December 20, 2024. Defendant failed to serve responses or otherwise seek an extension to do so. Plaintiff now moves for an order pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.300 on the ground that Defendant has failed to serve responses.

Plaintiff requests an award of $1,747.50 in monetary sanctions. Defendant opposes on the basis that the requests are cumulative and duplicative of other requests it has responded to during the course of litigation and that Defendant’s failure to respond was due to inadvertence of counsel. Defendant seeks relief from waiver of its objections accordingly.

Legal Standard

If the party to whom demand for inspection has been made fails to timely respond, the propounding party may bring a motion to compel a response. (Code Civ. Proc., §2031.300.) “Unlike a motion to compel further responses, a motion to compel responses is not subject to a

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2022-00322703-CU-OE-GDS: Kristin Gordon vs. Mendocino Area Parks Association, a California non-profit corporation 04/14/2025 Hearing on Motion to Compel Responses and Production to Her Document Demand, Set Two in Department 53

45-day time limit, and the propounding party does not have to demonstrate either good cause or that it satisfied a ‘meet and confer’ requirement.” (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 404.)

Discussion

It is undisputed that Defendants failed to serve responses to Plaintiff’s requests for production of documents, set two. In opposition, Defendants first argue the Court should consider whether the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative of the requests Plaintiff has already served in this case. The Court is not persuaded. If Defendants found the requests at issue to be unreasonably burdensome, Defendants could have timely sought a protective order in that regard. Alternatively, Defendant could have served responses that directed Plaintiff to documents Defendant had previously produced during the course of this litigation.

Defendant did not do so. Accordingly, Plaintiff is entitled to responses. As Defendant acknowledges, a party who fails to timely respond to a request for a demand for inspection waives objections to that demand. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300.) Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.300, subd. (a) indicates the offending party may be relieved from waiver of objections if that party seeks such relief by noticed motion, the failure was due to mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect, and the party has subsequently served compliant responses. (Code Civ.

Proc. § 2031.300(a).) Defendant is ineligible for relief from waiver as it has raised its arguments in opposition to Plaintiff’s motion to compel rather than proceeding by noticed motion. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to compel responses to her requests for production, set two, is GRANTED. To the extent it has not already done so, Defendant shall serve responses, without objection, no later than May 14, 2025. Sanctions Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is GRANTED in the amount of $1,410. The Court does not find substantial justification.

The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1312 or further notice is required.