DINWIDDIE vs JONES, et al.

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

24CV005749: DINWIDDIE vs JONES, et al. 09/02/2025 Hearing on Motion for Order Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents Defendant Shalane O'Keefe in Department 53

or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

TENTATIVE RULING: Plaintiff Kelly Rose Dinwiddie’s motion to compel Defendant Shalane O’Keefe’s further responses to requests for production is granted.

Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice is granted for the limited purposes permitted for judicial notice. (See, Evid. Code §451, subd. (a); §452, sub. (b)-(d); see also, Johnson & Johnson v. Superior Court (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 757, 768 [court may take judicial notice of the existence of court documents but not to the truth of the statements contained therein]; Kilroy v. State of California (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 140, 145-148; Sosinsky v. Grant (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1548, 1569-70.) Defendant’s request for judicial notice is granted for the same purposes except as to request no. 5 regarding an action apparently pending between Plaintiff’s parents and Brandon Shad Jones. No documents were provided as required by Evidence Code § 453(b).

In this action, Plaintiff alleges numerous claims against Defendants Brandon Shad Jones, Nanette Jones, Shalane O’Keefe, and Vanessa Jones for: (1) intentional interference with personal relationship; (2) intentional interference with exercise of civil rights, in violation of Civil Code section 52.1; (3) intentional infliction of emotional distress; (4) negligent infliction of emotional distress; and (5) breach of fiduciary duties. The complaint arises from allegations regarding the shared children of Plaintiff Kelly Rose Dinwiddie and Defendant Brandon Shad Jones.

At issue on the instant motion are Defendant’s responses to Plaintiff’s requests for production. Defendant’s responses consist entirely of objections, namely, that the discovery is improper because it is duplicative of discovery conducted in a dissolution proceeding in Idaho.

Defendant opposes the motion on the basis that the motion is untimely and that in any event, the objections are justified. The Court disagrees on both points.

With respect to requests for production, “[u]nless notice of this motion is given within 45 days of service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or on or before any specific later date to which the propounding party and the responding party have agreed in writing, the propounding party waives any right to compel a further response to the demand.” (CCP § 2031.100(c).) The statutory time “within which to make a [motion to compel further responses] is mandatory and jurisdictional” and the failure to file it within the required time frames “renders the court without authority to rule on motions to compel other than to deny them.” (Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410.)

The instant discovery was served on December 12, 2024, and Defendant’s responses were served

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV005749: DINWIDDIE vs JONES, et al. 09/02/2025 Hearing on Motion for Order Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents Defendant Shalane O'Keefe in Department 53

on January 14, 2025. (Young Decl. ¶¶ 2-3, Exh. A, B.) The parties engaged in a meet-and-confer process which resulted in the deadline for Plaintiff’s motion to compel being moved numerous times. (Tagert Decl. ¶¶ 9-21.) Ultimately, the parties agreed that Plaintiff’s had until May 2, 2025 to bring a motion to compel. (Tagert Decl. ¶ 21.) Here, the motion was served on May 2, 2025, and thus “notice of this motion” was given by parties’ agreed-upon deadline. It must be emphasized that the statue only requires the “notice” be given by any agreed upon timeline which it was.

Courts have confirmed that the deadline under the Civil Discovery Act is the date of service, not the date of filing. In Karz v. Karl (1982) 137 Cal.App.3d 637, a motion to compel was served but not filed within the statutory period. The court found the motion to be timely because “[t]he language of section 2030 could not be more explicit. The requirement is that the motion ‘must be upon notice given within 30 days from date of the service of the answers.’” (Id. at 646.) Here, there is no dispute that notice was provided on May 2, 2025.

In any event, Plaintiff provides evidence in reply that the motion was in fact submitted for eFiling and received on Friday May 2, 2025, but was apparently rejected because it was filed with the title “notice” instead of “motion. (Volchansky Decl. ¶ 4 Exh. B.) The motion was resubmitted the next Court day on May 5, 2025. The Court therefore concludes the motion is timely.

“On receipt of a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, the demanding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the demanding party deems that any of the following apply: [¶] (1) A statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete. [¶] (2) A representation of inability to comply is inadequate. [¶] (3) An objection in the response is without merit or too general.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.310(a).)

Here, Defendant simply argues that the subject discovery is improper because it duplicates discovery conducted in the Idaho dissolution proceeding between Plaintiff and Defendant Brandon Shad Jones. As a preliminary note, Defendant provided no evidence of any of the discovery supposedly conducted in that action nor made any factual showing that the discovery duplicated any discovery in this California action. In any event, even if Defendant had done so, Defendant cites no law which would preclude discovery in a California civil action alleging tort claims based on an Idaho dissolution action.

While Defendant cites to general principles of res judicata, that has no impact on discovery and Defendant cites no authority holding to the contrary. Any issue of res judicata may have relevance to the merits of the action, but is no basis upon which to resist discovery. Further, Defendant makes no actual attempt to apply the principles of res judicata to any discovery request, or for that matter, to any issue in this case. In any event, res judicata was not raised in Defendant’s response. The failure to raise an objection in a discovery response results in a waiver. (CCP §§ 2031.300(a); Scottsdale Ins.

Co. v. Superior Court (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 263, 274.)

Defendant also appears to contend that the discovery is unduly burdensome, apparently because it is duplicative of discovery from the Idaho dissolution action. Undue burden objections must be accompanied by a specific factual showing setting forth the amount of work necessary to respond

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV005749: DINWIDDIE vs JONES, et al. 09/02/2025 Hearing on Motion for Order Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents Defendant Shalane O'Keefe in Department 53

to the subject discovery. (West Pico Furniture Co. v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 407, 417- 418.) Defendant made no attempt to demonstrate the amount of work necessary to respond. Again, Defendant failed to even show how the instant discovery duplicates any discovery in the dissolution action.

Defendant had the burden to substantiate the objections and has not done so. (Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255 [citing Coy v. Superior Court (1962) 58 Cal.2d 220-221].) In reality, Defendant failed to discuss any objections in any detail, other than the matters discussed above.

All of the objections are overruled.

As a result, the motion is granted.

No later than September 16, 2025, Defendant shall serve further verified responses to Plaintiff’s requests for production.

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is denied. The Court finds that sanctions would be unjust under the circumstances. It does appear to the Court that the parties were negotiating a framework for discovery before the instant motions were filed. This leads the Court to conclude that sanctions at this time would not be appropriate, despite the lack of merit in any of the arguments presented in Defendant’s opposition.

Defendant’s request for sanctions is denied as the motion was granted.

The Court declines to rule on Plaintiff’s objections to Defendant’s evidence. The Court is not required to rule on evidentiary objections in the context of a discovery motion.

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