111 Rask vs. County of Orange

Finally, the Court stays the remainder of the action pending the resolution of the motion to stay proceedings.

Moving Defendants to give notice. 112 Space Exploration Technologies Corp. vs. Enteshari, 23-01365637 On 12/12/2025 Defendants filed the following Motions which were originally set for hearing on 6/25/2026:

(ROA 169) Defendant Ali Enteshari (“Defendant”) will move to compel Plaintiff Space Exploration Technologies Corp. (“Plaintiff”) to provide further responses to Requests for Production of Documents and Tangible Things, Set One, and reimburse Defendant for his attorneys’ fees incurred in bringing this Motion.

(ROA 181) Defendant Amin Enteshari (“Defendant”) will move to compel Plaintiff Space Exploration Technologies Corp. (“Plaintiff”) to provide further responses to Requests for Production of Documents and Tangible Things, Set One, and reimburse Defendant for his attorneys’ fees incurred in bringing this Motion.

(ROA 185) Defendant Amin Enteshari (“Defendant”) will move to compel Plaintiff Space Exploration Technologies Corp. (“Plaintiff”) to provide further responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One, and reimburse Defendant for his attorneys’ fees incurred in bringing this Motion.

(ROA 189) Defendant Ali Enteshari (“Defendant”) will move to compel Plaintiff Space Exploration Technologies Corp. (“Plaintiff”) to provide further responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One, and reimburse Defendant for his attorneys’ fees incurred in bringing this Motion.

Additionally, on 4/10/2026 Plaintiff filed the following Motions:

(ROA 203) Plaintiff Space Exploration Technologies Corp. (“Plaintiff”) will and hereby does move this Court pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310(a) for an order compelling Defendant Ali Enteshari (“Defendant”) to provide further responses to Plaintiff’s Third Set of Requests for Production of Documents, Numbers 67 68, 71-76, and 78. Plaintiff also moves for sanctions against Defendant his counsel at Berstein Law PC pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure §§ 2031.310(h) and 2023.050(a)(3), in the amount of $2,000.

(ROA 207) Plaintiff Space Exploration Technologies Corp. (“Plaintiff”) will and hereby does move this Court pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.320(a) for an order compelling Ali Enteshari (“Defendant”) to comply with his response to Plaintiff’s requests for production of

documents, set one, numbers 22, 43, and 48-49, and set two, numbers 58-60 and 61-66. Plaintiff also moves pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure sections 2031.320(b) and 2023.050(a)(3) for sanctions in the amount of $5,000 against Defendant and his counsel at Berstein Law PC, jointly and severally.

Notably, on 6/1/2026 pursuant to a Plaintiff’s Ex Parte, Judge Hesseltine advanced ROAS 203, 207 to be heard on 6/25/2026. (See ROA 225).

Thereafter, on 6/25/2026 this Court ordered lead counsel to meet and confer and file a joint separate statement nine court days prior to the continued hearing date of 7/23/2026.

To that end, on 7/20/2026 counsel submitted the joint separate statement. (ROA 315.)

As to the six (6) Motions, it appears there are only twelve (12) total issues to be resolved by this Court.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Ali Enteshari to Provide Further Responses to Requests for Production, Set Three (ROA 23)

On receipt of the response to a document demand, the demanding party may move to compel a further response if any of the following apply: (1) a statement of compliance is incomplete; (2) a representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete or evasive; (3) an objection is without merit or too general. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (a).)

The motion must set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery, and it must be accompanied by a separate statement. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345.)

To establish “good cause,” the burden is on the moving party to show both: • Relevance to the subject matter (e.g., how the information in the documents would tend to prove or disprove some issue in the case); and • Specific facts justifying discovery (e.g., why such information is necessary for trial preparation or to prevent surprise at trial). (Glenfed Develop. Corp. v. Sup.Ct. (National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Penn.) (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1117; see also Kirkland v. Sup.Ct. (Guess”, Inc.) (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 92, 98.)

If good cause is shown by the moving party, the burden is then on the responding party to justify any objections made