DINWIDDIE vs JONES, et al.

24CV005749: DINWIDDIE vs JONES, et al. 03/10/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel O'Keefe's Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One in Department 53

Tentative Ruling

NOTICE:

Consistent with Local Rule 1.06(B), any party requesting oral argument on any matter on this calendar must comply with the following procedure:

To request limited oral argument, on any matter on this calendar, you must call the Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-2615 by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the hearing and advise opposing counsel. At the time of requesting oral argument, the requesting party shall leave a voice mail message: a) identifying themselves as the party requesting oral argument; b) indicating the specific matter/motion for which they are requesting oral argument; and c) confirming that it has notified the opposing party of its intention to appear and that opposing party may appear via Zoom using the Zoom link and Meeting ID indicated below. If no request for oral argument is made, the tentative ruling becomes the final order of the Court.

Unless ordered to appear in person by the Court, parties may appear remotely either telephonically or by video conference via the Zoom video/audio conference platform with notice to the Court and all other parties in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure §367.75. Although remote participation is not required, the Court will presume all parties are appearing remotely for non-evidentiary civil hearings.

The Department 53 Zoom Link is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept53.54 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 4650 6749. To appear on Zoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID referenced above. NO COURTCALL APPEARANCES WILL BE ACCEPTED.

Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf. Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp- 13.pdf.

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

24CV005749: DINWIDDIE vs JONES, et al. 03/10/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel O'Keefe's Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One in Department 53

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 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 Dinwiddie’s motion to compel defendant Shalane O’Keefe’s further responses to Request for Production, Set One, is ruled upon as follows.

Opposing counsel also failed to comply with CRC Rule 3.1110(b)(4).

Factual Background

This action arises from defendants’ interference with plaintiff’s custody of her minor children. Trial is set for 6/8/2026.

Moving Papers. According to the moving papers, defendant Shalane O’Keefe provided further responses to plaintiff’s Request for Production, Set One (“RFP One”) on 9/16/2025 but the majority of these further responses are “not Code-compliant” and “improperly reference[] objections” which were overruled by Court in its 9/2/2025 order granting plaintiff’s (prior) motion to compel defendant Shalane O’Keefe’s further responses to RFP One. Following meetand-confer efforts, defendant Shalane O’Keefe voluntarily provided “amended further responses” to RFP One on 11/21/2025, with the verification being provided on 12/3/2025.

Plaintiff maintains that despite additional meet-and-confer efforts, defendant Shalane O’Keefe’s “amended further responses” to RFP One and specifically, No. 1, remain deficient especially since all objections were overruled by the Court in its 9/2/2025 order granting plaintiff’s (prior) motion to compel defendant Shalane O’Keefe’s further responses to RFP One, making defendant’s current statement of compliance “incomplete, evasive, and violat[ive of] the Court’s previous order ” Plaintiff also seeks monetary sanctions against defendant Shalane O’Keefe and her counsel.

Opposition. According to the opposition, this motion should be denied because (1) the “amended further responses” substantially comply with the Code’s requirements; (2) “the objections to definitions referenced in the responses were not put at issue by the Plaintiff’s prior motions, and so any objection to these was waived by Plaintiff; (3) plaintiff acknowledged that defendant’s “general objections” had been preserved and thus, defendant was “substantially justified” in including the objections and references to them in the “amended further responses;” (4) plaintiff misused the discovery process by refusing to engage in good faith meet-and-confer efforts, instead “issuing a series of demands in a kind of bait and switch after previously acknowledging that the objections had been preserved;” and (5) there is no practical benefit to

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV005749: DINWIDDIE vs JONES, et al. 03/10/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel O'Keefe's Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One in Department 53

granting this motion because no documents were withheld on account of the referenced objections. The opposition also seeks monetary sanctions against plaintiff for bringing this motion.

Discussion

At the outset, the sole response to RFP One at issue here is as follows.

Response to Request No. 1: Attached hereto as Exhibit A, [sic] JONES 0700–0763, [sic] a copy of all documents responsive to this request within responding party’s possession, custody, or control to which no objection has been made. (Underline added for emphasis.)

Next, it is important to point out the following language from the Court’s 9/2/2025 order granting plaintiff’s prior motion to compel defendant Shalane O’Keefe’s further responses to RFP One:

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].)

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. (Underline added for emphasis.)

The foregoing language eliminated the potential for any remaining doubt that defendant was not permitted to assert any objection, general or specific, in the further responses, including the “amended further responses” ultimately served in November 2025.

Even in the absence of the Court’s 9/2/2025 order, defendant’s inclusion in the November 2025 “amended further responses” numerous prefatory “general objections” to the whole of plaintiff’s RFP One was improper and contrary to well established California law. First Code of Civil Procedure §2031.210(a) expressly provides in pertinent part:

The party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling has been directed shall respond separately to each item or category of item by any of the following: (1) A statement that the party will comply with the particular demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling by the date set for the inspection, copying, testing, or sampling pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (c) of Section 2031.030 and any

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV005749: DINWIDDIE vs JONES, et al. 03/10/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel O'Keefe's Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One in Department 53

related activities. (2) A representation that the party lacks the ability to comply with the demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling of a particular item or category of item. (3) An objection to the particular demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling. (Underline added for emphasis.)

Second, Code of Civil Procedure §2031.310(a) authorizes a party to move to compel a further response to requests for production if any of the following apply:

(1) A statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete. (2) A representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive. (3) An objection in the response is without merit or too general. (Underline added for emphasis.)

Third, the Fourth District Court of Appeal has confirmed that “boiler plate” objections which lack the specificity mandated by statute, including those referred to as “prefatory” or “general” objections, are properly the subject of a motion to compel and support an order compelling further responses. (See, Korea Data Systems Company Ltd. v. Superior Court (Aamazing Technologies Corporation) (1997) 51 Cal.App.4th 1513, 1516; see also, People ex rel. Lockyer v. Superior Court (Cole National Corporation) (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1060, 1072 [use of ‘boiler plate’ objections are sanctionable].)

Thus, even without the Court’s 9/2/2025 order overruling all objections that were included in defendant’s initial discovery responses,” defendant Shalane O’Keefe was not permitted to include any of the purported “general” objections in her “amended further responses” and for this reason alone, the present motion to compel by plaintiff is justified.

Moreover, aside from the improper inclusion of “general” or “prefatory” objections to plaintiff’s RFP One, the Court finds that defendant’s purported statement of compliance with respect to request No. 1 remains incomplete, ambiguous and/or evasive to the extent this response, by its own terms, merely indicates that defendant has produced all responsive documents “to which no objection has been made” even though, as noted above, the Court’s previous order expressly overruled all objections. The opposition’s claim there would be “no practical benefit” from granting this motion because no documents were withheld on account of the referenced objections defies logic since, if no documents were actually withheld from production, then defendant should be ready, willing and able to provide a further code-compliant response to this request.

That she has not yet done so only serves to heighten plaintiff’s concerns over the “amended further responses” and more importantly, constitutes justification for an order compelling still further responses.

Finally, the opposition’s suggestion that plaintiff failed to meet-and-confer in good faith before filing this motion is similarly infirm. Aside from the reasons set forth in the preceding

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV005749: DINWIDDIE vs JONES, et al. 03/10/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel O'Keefe's Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One in Department 53

paragraph, defendant’s counsel’s own 1/8/2026 email (see, Khan Decl., Ex. V) makes clear that plaintiff’s further meet-and-confer efforts to reach an informal resolution would have been futile. Under such circumstances, the Court rejects the notion that plaintiff’s meet-and-confer efforts were insufficient as a matter of law so as to warrant denial of this motion.

Disposition

For the reasons explained above, plaintiff’s motion to compel defendant Shalane O’Keefe’s further response to RFP One, No. 1, is GRANTED.

Defendant Shalane O’Keefe shall provide a verified, code-compliant further response, without objections, to plaintiff’s RFP One, No. 1, no later than 3/24/2026 (unless plaintiff agrees to a later date memorialized in writing).

The Court declines to award any monetary sanctions under the circumstances here.

Moving party to provide notice of this ruling and file proof of service of same within five (5) court days.

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc. §1019.5; CRC Rule 3.1312.)