Kimberlee Hansen v. MM Asia Napa, LLC et al

(See Opposition, pp. 1-5; Declaration of Michael G. Watters, filed 4/20/26 (“Watters Decl.”), ¶¶ 13-17.) Defendants further request that the Court deny the motion on the ground that the discovery is duplicative. (Opposition, pp. 4-5.) Finally, Defendants request that the Court deny Plaintiff’s request for sanctions, arguing that Defendants’ current counsel has been responsive to Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel could have avoided this motion by trying to resolve the dispute informally first. (Opposition, p. 5.)

While Defendants’ showing is not grounds to deny the motion to compel responses, it supports Defendants’ showing of substantial justification in opposition to sanctions, further discussed below.

As such, Plaintiff’s motion to compel responses is GRANTED. Defendants shall serve verified code-compliant responses, without objections, within 14 calendar days of service of notice of entry of order. (§ 2031.300, subds. (a)-(b).)

“The court shall impose a monetary sanction . . . against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully . . . opposes a motion to compel a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (§ 2031.300, subd. (c).)

The Court finds that Defendants acted with substantial justification based on Defendants’ showing that the subject discovery requests were served while Defendants were in the process of substituting counsel, that current counsel was not aware of the outstanding discovery requests until served with the instant motion, and that current counsel immediately attempted to meet and confer to informally resolve the dispute. Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s request for sanctions as against Defendants is DENIED.

Kimberlee Hansen v. MM Asia Napa, LLC et al 26CV000043

[1] DEFENDANTS’ DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT

[2] MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT

TENTATIVE RULING: Both matters are CONTINUED to June 5, 2026, at 8:30 a.m. in Dept. B. In the interim, the parties are encouraged to continue meeting and conferring in a good faith effort to informally resolve or narrow the issues raised in the motion and demurrer.

9