Motion to Compel Production
Superior Court of the State of California County of Orange
Hon. ANDRE MANSSOURIAN Department C12 – (657) 622-5212
TENTATIVE RULINGS
Court will make every effort to post tentative rulings by approximately 3:00 p.m. the court day before the date the motion is to be heard. If the parties agree to submit on the Court’s tentative ruling, please call Department C12 directly to inform the court that all parties submit to the Court’s tentative ruling. Reminder: Court does NOT provide court reporters. No filings or briefs of any kind will be accepted after the tentative ruling is posted. Parties are welcome to be present in court for the law and motion calendar or appear by Zoom. To make an appearance via Zoom please click the following link. If you are unable to log in, please call the department for an alternative arrangement. https://www.occourts.org/civil-remotehearings.
July 17, 2026
# Case Name Tentative 1. Szabo vs. Rudy Project North America, L.P.
25-01477300
Motion to Compel Production
The Court orders this case to a discovery referee.
A referee may be appointed on motion of any party or on the court’s own motion where necessary “to hear and determine any and all discovery motions and disputes relevant to discovery in the action and to report findings and make a recommendation thereon.” [CCP § 639(a)(5); CRC 3.920(a)]
A court may order a discovery referee where a majority of the following factors exist: “(1) there are multiple issues to be resolved; (2) there are multiple motions to be heard simultaneously; (3) the
present motion is only one in a continuum of many; (4) the number of documents to be reviewed (especially in issues based on assertions of privilege) make the inquiry inordinately time-consuming.” (Taggares v. Superior Court (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 94, 105.)
In addition to the present motion, Plaintiff has filed 14 additional discovery motions. The motions include three motions to quash, a motion to compel further responses to special interrogatories, and several motions to compel production of documents that involve numerous document requests against multiple defendants. Defendants have allegedly not produced any documents and have also asserted the attorney-client and/or attorney work product privilege to most of the discovery at issue.
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?”
Based on the foregoing, the Court finds good cause to appoint a discovery referee.
Plaintiff shall submit a proposed order appointing a mutually agreed upon discovery referee before July 31, 2026.
In the event the parties fail to mutually agree upon a discovery referee, the parties are ORDERED to each submit a list of three proposed discovery referees from which the Court will appoint a discovery referee, before August 14, 2026.
The Court now sets an OSC re: Compliance with Court Order (Selection of Discovery Referee) for September 10, 2026, at 9:30 a.m. in Department C12.
If the Discovery Referee is selected by the Court (or agreed upon by the parties) before that date, the Court will automatically vacate the Court date.
Additionally, the Discovery motions currently on calendar for August 7, 2026, are continued to November 6, 2026.
THIS DECISION IS FINAL
Plaintiff to give notice of this ruling.
2. Noria vs. Mason Reconstruction LLC
25-01498751
Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel of Record
The motion of attorneys Joshua White and Allen Ho of Laurel Employment Law to withdraw as attorneys of record for Plaintiff Edwardo Noria is DENIED without prejudice.