ROSE VS CAMBRA-BRUNGARD et al

TENTATIVE RULING(S) FOR JULY 2, 2026 Department S37 – Judge Winston Keh This court follows California Rules of Court, rule 3.1308(b) for tentative rulings. (See San Bernardino Superior Court Local Emergency Rule 8.) Tentative rulings for each law & motion will be posted on the internet (https://www.sb-court.org) by 3:00 p.m. on the court day immediately before the hearing.

You may appear in person at the hearing although remote appearance by CourtCall is preferred. (See www.sb-court.org/general-information/remote-access).

If you do not have Internet access or if you experience difficulty with the posted tentative ruling, you may obtain the tentative ruling by calling the department (S-37) at (909) 708-8707 or the Administrative Assistant (909) 708-8756, who prepared the ruling.

If you (or both parties) wish to submit on the Tentative, notify the other party and call the department by 4:00 pm the day before and your appearance may be excused unless the Court orders you to appear.

You must appear at the hearing if you are so directed by the court in the tentative ruling. Be prepared to address those issues set forth by the court in its ruling.

UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, THE PREVAILING PARTY IS TO GIVE NOTICE OF THE

RULING.

ROSE VS CAMBRA-BRUNGARD et al

__________________________________________________________________________

TENTATIVE RULING(S):

Before the Court is Defendant Cambra-Brungard’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to

Request for Production of Documents #53, 56 and 63. The issues have been fully briefed.

Objections

With her Opposition, Plaintiff Rose filed evidentiary objections to Johnson’s Declaration

at (1) p. 2:26-28, (2) Exhibit A, (3) ¶3, (4) ¶7, (5) ¶10, and (6) ¶11 because lacks foundation,

speculation, irrelevant, ambiguous, argument, improper opinion, and/or calls for expert

testimony: The Court SUSTAINS objections #1-2 (irrelevant) but OVERRULES objections #3-6.

Analysis

As a procedural matter, Plaintiff Rose argues that Defendant’s Separate Statement is

deficient because it fails to include the preamble and definitions, and does not cite to any case

law to support reasons for further responses. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(c) requires the

Separate Statement to provide all information necessary to understand each discovery demand.

Plaintiff does not explain how the lack of the preamble or definitions precludes understanding the

demands or responses given, or preclude the evaluation of the demands and responses. Also,

nothing in the rule mandates citing to case law to support a reason for why further responses

should be given. The Separate Statement is adequate.

Substantively, at issue is three document demands:

#53. All documents evidencing Rose’s claims for loss of income.

#58. All documents evidencing Rose’s bonus structure during her employment with L’Oreal.

#63. All documents evidencing any bonuses Rose received from L’Oreal from 2021 through

2024.

To #53, Plaintiff objected because seeks attorney-client privilege or work product,

invades financial privacy, and vague. To #58 and 63, Plaintiff objected that the demands invaded

her privacy. Without waiving these objections, Plaintiff initially stated that she would produce

responsive, non-privileged documents. In her amended responses for RFPs #53 and 63, Plaintiff

identified that she has produced documents bate-stamped ROSE_003232 to ROSE_003246.

Plaintiff produced additional documents on February 9, 2026. In particular, Plaintiff has produced

her 2024 W-2, her offer letter that showed her base salary for 2021, profit sharing calculation for

her annual bonus, participation in long-term stock program, and separation agreement. (Canfield

Decl. at ¶6.)

Defendant takes issue with the production being deficient as the demands sought Rose’s

actual income, wages, and bonuses, which necessarily includes her pay stubs, wage

statements, and/or bank records reflecting wage and bonus deposits. Defendant notes that

Plaintiff put her income and bonuses at issue in her deposition. In particular, she testified that

she is claiming loss of income and bonuses, as she lost her job with L’Oreal in November 2024,

because of the issues within this litigation. (Johnson Decl. at ¶¶3, 17, Exh. H.)

Initially, based on Plaintiff’s testimony, she waived any privacy interest that she may have

in her wages and bonuses received from her employer at the time of the purchase of the Lake

Arrowhead property. She put such financial information at issue. Also, she offers no analysis of

how a wage record identifying wages and bonuses paid would constitute an attorney

communication or work product.

Next, based on the documents identified produced, Plaintiff has not established that she

has produced all documents in her possession, custody, or control that would be responsive. In

particular, she does not offer that she lacks possession of any wage statements issued in 2024

or years prior that identify bonuses. Although she argues that she lacks such, then she should

state that under a verified response. Also, she does not explain how she lacks the ability to

obtain bank statements that can identify wage and bonus deposits. On the other hand, she

produced her profit sharing calculation, which appears responsive to RFP #58.

Based on the foregoing, the Court COMPELS Plaintiff Rose to provide further responses

to RFPs #53 and 63, but DENIES compelling a further response to RFP #58.

Sanctions. Both sides sought sanctions. Although Plaintiff prevailed on one RFP, she lost

on the other two, and does not provide a valid excuse for not providing a verify response that

she lacks possession, custody, or control of her wage records – wage statements or pay stubs –

or produce bank statements (redacted) that identify wage and bonus deposits. Thus, Defendant

is entitled to sanctions.

Attorney Johnson attests that her hourly rate is $500, and her paralegal’s hourly rate is

$150. She spent 4 hours on meeting and conferring, and preparing the motion, and the

paralegal spent 3 hours to assemble and prepare the pleading and exhibits. Johnson further

attests to incurring 3 hours to review the opposition, prepare the reply, and attend the hearing.

(Johnson Decl. at ¶¶19-20.).

In reviewing the material, although 3 demands were at issue, the analysis for each was

the same. Also, meeting and conferring would have been necessary regardless if the motion was

filed. Thus, seven hours to prepare the motion, review the opposition, prepare the reply, and

attend the hearing is slightly high. Also, three hours to assemble and prepare the motion is

overstated, especially when just needed to provide the discovery demand and responses, and a

few pages from a deposition transcript. A reasonable sanction is $2,150 [($500 x 4 hours) +

($150 x 1)].

RULING

Based on the aforementioned analysis, the Court rules as follows:

(1) GRANTS Defendant Cambra-Brungard’s Motion to Compel, in part, and

COMPEL further responses to RFPs #53 and 63 within 15 days of this hearing,

subject to the right to redact all irrelevant information within produced bank

statements;

(2) DENIES Defendant Cambra-Brungaard’s Motion to Compel to RFP #58;

(3) ORDERS Plaintiff Rose and her attorneys of record, Eric Canfield of La Jolla

Law Group, to pay $2,150 in sanctions within 5 days of this hearing; and

(4) SUSTAINS Plaintiff Rose’s evidentiary objections #1-2 (irrelevant) but

OVERRULES Plaintiff Rose’s evidentiary objections #3-6.