MORENO vs CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

23CV031680: MORENO vs CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 07/21/2026 Hearing on Motion for Order RELIEF FROM WAIVER OF OBJECTIONS; filed by ELIZABETH MORENO (Plaintiff) CRS# 310093568851 in Department 518

Tentative Ruling - 07/16/2026 Mark Fickes

The Motion re: PLAINTIFF ELIZABETH MORENO'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR RELIEF OF WAIVER OF PRIVILEGES; MEMORANDUM filed by ELIZABETH MORENO on 06/11/2026 is Denied.

On May 5, 2026, this court ordered Plaintiff Elizabeth Moreno to serve complete, verified, objection-free responses to each Defendant’s Form Interrogatories-General, Form Interrogatories-Employment (where applicable), Special Interrogatories, and Requests for Production of Documents by May 22, 2026.

Following this order, Plaintiff filed a writ with the First District Court of Appeal which was denied. Then, California Supreme Court denied Plaintiff’s petition regarding this writ on June 10, 2026. (MPA, pp. 7 - 8.)

On June 11, 2026, Plaintiff filed a motion for relief from waiver of privileges, which is opposed.

Plaintiff is of the opinion that the Court’s May 5, 2026, order is somehow a reconsideration of an earlier order by Judge Sanford-Smith. Plaintiff cites certain comments made by Judge Sanford- Smith regarding a different order on a motion for a protective order and an order in a completely different case. (MPA, p. 7; Pevzner Decl. ¶ 5, ex. B.)

This Court, under Judge Fickes, ruled on the motion to compel discovery responses for the first time on May 5, 2026. No evidence shows that Judge Sanford-Smith intended to allow Plaintiff to waive privileges in perpetuity, as to all future motions related to discovery.

Despite not responding to discovery requests, even with only objections for nearly a year, Plaintiff is asking the Court to reconsider the same arguments that were made in May based on the same evidence. (Pevzner Decl. ¶ 3 states that discovery requests were served July 21, 2025; ¶ 11 – 12, ex. D - E.) This motion is labeled a motion for relief from waiver of objections under CCP 473(b) but in fact it is a motion for reconsideration.

CCP § 1008(a) provides, “When an application for an order has been made to a judge, or to a court, and refused in whole or in part, or granted, or granted conditionally, or on terms, any party affected by the order may, within 10 days after service upon the party of written notice of entry of the order and based upon new or different facts, circumstances, or law, make application to the same judge or court that made the order, to reconsider the matter and modify, amend, or revoke the prior order.

The party making the application shall state by affidavit what application was made before, when and to what judge, what order or decisions were made, and what new or different facts, circumstances, or law are claimed to be shown.” Further, “[t]he party seeking reconsideration must provide not just new evidence or different facts, but a satisfactory 23CV031680: MORENO vs CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 07/21/2026 Hearing on Motion for Order RELIEF FROM WAIVER OF OBJECTIONS; filed by ELIZABETH MORENO (Plaintiff) CRS# 310093568851 in Department 518 explanation for the failure to produce it at an earlier time.” (Glade v.

Glade (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 1441, 1457.)

Plaintiff has supplied no new evidence, facts, or law. Thus, the Court has no reason to reconsider the May 5, 2026, Order.

Even if the Court were to construe this as motion for relief from waiver of privileges, Plaintiff has not met the standard and it is denied on that basis as well. (Leach v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 902, 906 [“Where no objections have been made within the statutorily permitted time, they are deemed waived.”].)

Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration and/or motion for relief from waiver of privileges is DENIED.

---

PLEASE NOTE: Pursuant to California Rule of Court 3.1308, subdivision (a)(1), this tentative ruling will become the order of the Court unless it is contested before 4:00 PM on the court day preceding the noticed hearing.

To contest a tentative ruling, a party should do the following:

First, the party must notify Department 518, by email at Dept518@alameda.courts.ca.gov and copy all counsel of record and self-represented parties. The contesting party must state in the subject line of the email the case name, case number and motion.

Second, the party shall log into the eCourt Public Portal, search for this case (e.g., by case number), select the case name, select the "Tentative Rulings" tab, click the "Click to Contest this Ruling" button, enter the party's name and a brief statement of the party's reason for contesting the tentative, and click "Proceed."

Please note the Court does not permit remote appearances for motions for summary judgment that are contested. If you contest a Motion for Summary Judgment, you must appear in person.

For all other motions (unless otherwise noted in the tentative ruling), Parties may appear via videoconference, using the Zoom.com website or application. TO CONNECT TO ZOOM: Department 518 is inviting you to a scheduled ZoomGov meeting.

Topic: Department 518's Personal Meeting Room

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

23CV031680: MORENO vs CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 07/21/2026 Hearing on Motion for Order RELIEF FROM WAIVER OF OBJECTIONS; filed by ELIZABETH MORENO (Plaintiff) CRS# 310093568851 in Department 518 Join ZoomGov Meeting https://alameda-courts-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16054307984

Meeting ID: 160 5430 7984

One tap mobile +16692545252,,16054307984# US (San Jose) +14154494000,,16054307984# US (US Spanish Line)

---

Dial by your location • +1 669 254 5252 US (San Jose)