Brambila, Leonor vs. Familia Partida, LLC

resolves all claims against it. As such, the Court finds coordination appropriate.

Coordination Site and Appellate Jurisdiction The Petition seeks to deem Contra Costa County Superior Court as the appropriate court for this coordinated action. California Rule of Court 3.530(b) provides the following relevant factors for a coordination motion judge to recommend the site of coordination proceedings: (1) the number of included actions in particular locations; (2) whether the litigation is at an advanced stage in a particular court; (3) the efficient use of court facilities and judicial resources; (4) the locations of witnesses and evidence; (5) the convenience of the parties and witnesses; (6) the parties' principal place of business; (7) the office locations of counsel for the parties; and (8) the ease of travel to and availability of accommodations in particular locations.

Petitioner notes that the Martinez-Wakefield Taylor Courthouse has been designated as the courthouse where complex cases are managed in the Superior Court of California County of Contra Costa. Further, that Fresno and Tulare lack dedicated complex litigation departments. The opposition does not address this issue, except to note that the Parcasio PAGA Action (set in Contra Costa) is the latest filed case.

The Court sets Contra Costa County Superior Court for the site of coordination proceedings. Further, the Court sets the First Appellate District as having appellate jurisdiction.

If no one requests oral argument, under Code of Civil Procedure section 1019.5(a) and California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312(a), no further written order is necessary. The minute order adopting this tentative ruling will become the order of the court and service by the clerk will constitute notice of the order. Court reporters are usually not available for law and motion matters in the civil division. The parties and counsel must provide their own reporter if they want a transcript of the proceedings.

The Tentative Rulings for Friday, July 24, 2026, are: Re: Brambila, Leonor vs. Familia Partida, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company et al Case No.: PCU318630 Date: July 24, 2026 Time: 8:30 A.M. Dept. 15-Honorable Gary M. Johnson Motions: Motion to Compel and Motion to Deem Admitted Tentative Rulings: The motion to deem admitted is denied, and the motion to compel further responses to general form interrogatories, employment-specific form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and requests for production of documents is granted as provided herein.

Sanctions of $861.50 on the motion to deem admitted, based on the untimely served responses to requests for admission, and sanctions of $1,074.50 on the motion to compel further responses to other discovery, are granted against plaintiff. The court here takes up defendant Familia Partida LLC's previously continued motions (a) to compel further discovery responses, and (b) to deemed admitted matters at issue in requests for admission.

Background

Plaintiff commenced this action with a 21 cause of action complaint asserting various employment law claims, including, amongst several others, various wage and hour Labor Code claims, sexual harassment claims, and discrimination. Plaintiff alleges she was hired by Familia Partida LLC (Familia) "to work in the Meat Section at Defendant's business," "[o]n or about 2022," and during her employment through "her constructive dismissal" "[o]n or about April 14, 2024" (when she "was forced to resign" "due to the ongoing stress and hostile work environment"), she suffered various unlawful actions perpetrated by Familia, her former co-workers "Juan Doe" and "Noe Doe," as well as "Adolfo Doe," "the owner of the Guadalajara Meat Market."

Plaintiff filed her complaint on February 26, 2025. Nearly a year later, on January 16, 2026, Familia served general form interrogatories, employment-specific form interrogatories, special interrogatories (377 of them), requests for production of documents (81 of these), and requests for admission (also 81 of these) on plaintiff that were due February 19, 2026. February 17, 2026, plaintiff served only unverified responses consisting of boilerplate objections and a response to general form interrogatory 1.1, regarding the identify of the person answering.

On February 25, 2026, Familia's counsel sent a letter outlining various deficiencies in plaintiff's discovery responses. The parties later scheduled a March 4, 2026 call to further confer. Less than 15 minutes prior to the scheduled call, plaintiff's counsel, Christopher Goodrich, emailed stating, "something has come up and I will not be able to make our 12:30 p.m. phone call today." Counsel acknowledged the discovery responses lacked verification by plaintiff and indicated they were "working to obtain our client's signature."

Counsel also indicated they were "diligently working to secure our cooperation and will supplement the responses with substantive answers where appropriate." Counsel suggested a "short extension" would "allow us to resolve these issues without the need for motion practice." Counsel requested an extension to March 18, 2026, "to serve verified, supplemental responses."

Familia's counsel, Nick Pritchett, responded that Goodrich's action were "nothing more than gamesmanship," and that "[i]f no acceptable responses are provided by Monday March 9, 2026, at noon, we will file the appropriate motions and will seek sanctions against your firm." Plaintiff did not, thereafter, serve "verified, supplemental responses" and, on March 19, 2026, Familia filed its discovery motions, including requests for sanctions.

In opposition, plaintiff challenged the sufficiency of defendant's declarations of necessity (see Code Civ. Proc., Sec.Sec. 2033.050 [re: requests for admission]; 2030.050 [re: special interrogatories]); averred that "verified, substantive responses to [requests for admission] [were] being served concurrently with [the] opposition" (inferably limiting the declaration of necessity challenge to the special interrogatories); and requested a 45-day extension "to serve verified, substantive responses to the Form Interrogatories and Requests for Production, given the extraordinary volume of discovery propounded and the complexity of the claims involved."

In its reply, Familia acknowledged receipt of plaintiff's verified responses to requests for admission and withdrew its request that the matters at issue be deemed admitted. Familia still maintained that it was entitled to sanctions, as it had initially requested, incident to having to file a motion to secure plaintiff's responses.

Familia's discovery motions came on for hearing on May 5, 2026. The court found plaintiff, during meet and confer efforts preceding the motions, "acknowledged insufficient responses, sought additional time and was prepared to provide substantive responses." The court, therefore, ordered "the parties to meet and confer over the next 45 day period"; "to discuss the sufficiency of the further responses to the requests for admissions"; and "to discuss the sufficiency of the declaration as to additional interrogatories."

The court additionally stated: "Should Defendant receive further, verified responses to the interrogatories and requests for production and should Defendant find substantial compliance as to the further responses to admissions, the Court will consider these motions moot. Any issues with the further responses will require a motion to compel further responses, including a meet and confer requirement and separate statement." The court additionally set a status conference as to the discovery motions on July 21, 2026.

On June 23, 2026, the case was scheduled for settlement conference. In a settlement conference statement filed June 18, 2026, Goodrich stated "[p]laintiff is actively working to finalize supplemental discovery responses and anticipates providing verified, substantive responses in advance of the July 21, 2026 status conference." Neither Goodrich nor plaintiff, however, appeared for the settlement conference. The court issued an order for Goodrich and plaintiff to show cause why the matter should not be dismissed or why sanctions of $600 should not be imposed for failure to appear.

Plaintiff filed a response to the order to show cause and defendants filed an opposition. In defendants' opposition, they asserted that plaintiff and her counsel had not "provided code-compliant discovery responses," attempted "to meet and confer," "nor otherwise indicated any intention to comply with the Court's [May 5, 2026] adopted ruling."

The court's order to show cause came on for hearing on July 14, 2026. Goodrich appeared late at the hearing via Zoom. Judge Burke, then presiding, recused himself from the proceedings, and continued the order to show cause to July 20, 2026. Judge Burke additionally reset hearing on the discovery motions to July 24, 2026. At the continued OSC hearing on July 20th, the court imposed sanctions of $600 against Goodrich and, further, confirmed continued hearing on the discovery motions for July 24, 2026.

DISCUSSION

There have been no subsequent submissions in this case since defendants' opposition to plaintiff's response to the court's order to show cause. The court assumes, given defendants' statement in defendants' opposition to plaintiff's response to the court's order to show cause--that plaintiff and her counsel had not "provided code-compliant discovery responses," attempted "to meet and confer," "nor otherwise indicated any intention to comply with the Court's [May 5, 2026] adopted ruling"--that, beyond the further verified, substantive responses to requests for admission, there have been no further efforts on plaintiff's part to respond to Familia's discovery demands, as promised or otherwise.

As to the motion to deem admitted, the court accepts the concession that responses were provided, and denies the request to deem admitted, but is required to grant, and therefore grants, Familia's request for sanctions in the amount of $861.50 against plaintiff based on plaintiff's failure to serve timely responses, which failure necessitated the motion. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2033.280, subd. (c).)

As to the motion to compel, the court finds plaintiff's objections to Familia's declaration of necessity in support of its special interrogatories without merit. As plaintiff concedes, Familia's special interrogatories are styled as contention interrogatories that demand, with respect to the factual allegations in "each numbered paragraph of the Complaint" (there are 221 total), a statement of "all facts," and identification of "all persons with knowledge" and "all documents," in support of those factual allegations.

Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.010, subdivision (b), specifically authorizes contention interrogatories and provides: "An interrogatory may relate to whether another party is making a certain contention, or to the facts, witnesses, and writings on which a contention is based." (See also, Burke v. Superior Court of Sacramento County (1969) 71 Cal.2d 276, 285 [78 Cal.Rptr. 481, 455 P.2d 409]; Singer v. Superior Court of Contra Costa County (1960) 54 Cal.2d 318, 326 [5 Cal.Rptr. 697, 353 P.2d 305].)

The court additionally notes that, to the extent plaintiff believes these inquires could be narrowed, it is well-past the 45-day period designated by the court in its May 5, 2026 ruling for meet and confer efforts, and well-past the date Goodrich indicated that he anticipated plaintiff "providing verified, substantive responses" to Familia's outstanding discovery. Plaintiff raised no substantive objection to Familia's form interrogatories or requests for production and instead merely requested an additional 45 days to serve responses. That period was given, and has, again, long passed.

Plaintiff did object, however, to being compelled to serve responses without objections, particularly as to objections on attorney client privilege or work product grounds. Familia had asserted, citing Appleton v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632 [253 Cal.Rptr. 762], that because the responses plaintiff timely served, consisting solely of boilerplate objections, were unverified, they were effectively not responses at all. Verification of the discovery responses, however, is not required where responses contain only objections under Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.250, subdivision (a) and 2031.250, subdivision (a).

Appleton is distinguishable as it involved partially substantive responses to requests for admission (id., at p. 634) and did not discuss sections 2030.250 or 2031.250. Familia did not otherwise analyze the validity of plaintiff's objections or even include copies of plaintiff's responses.

The court notes, however, in Familia's initial meet and confer correspondence, it stated that plaintiff asserted, in response to all discovery demands, objections that the demands were essentially overbroad, burdensome, irrelevant, and "could encompass information protected by privacy rights." No reference was made to any objection based on attorney client privilege or work product protection. Further notable, in opposing the motions, while plaintiff argued that the right to object to discovery on attorney client privilege or work product protection grounds should remain, she did not identify any of Familia's discovery demands as implicating such protections.

Based on the foregoing, the court grants Familia's motion to compel further responses to its general form interrogatories, employment-specific form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and requests for production of documents, and directs plaintiff to provide code compliant responses within 30 days and without objection, including any objection based on attorney-client privilege or work product protection, if such objections were not previously asserted in plaintiff's prior discovery responses.

In the event plaintiff reasserts attorney-client privilege or work product protection in objection to a document demand, plaintiff shall provide a privilege log, including a specific factual description of the documents withheld, with a sufficient explanation of the basis for objection to enable the court to evaluate the privilege or protection claim. In the event plaintiff reasserts any such privilege or protection in objection to an interrogatory, the response must state the particular privilege or protection asserted with sufficient information for the court to evaluate the privilege or protection claim and must otherwise respond to the interrogatory as to any information not claimed to be privileged or protected.

The court finds, under the circumstances presented here, sanctions requested on the motion to compel further responses of $1,074.50 are warranted, and it grants that request against plaintiff as well.

If no one requests oral argument, under Code of Civil Procedure section 1019.5(a) and California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312(a), no further written order is necessary. The minute order adopting this tentative ruling will become the order of the court and service by the clerk will constitute notice of the order. Court reporters are usually not available for law and motion matters in the civil division. The parties and counsel must provide their own reporter if they want a transcript of the proceedings.

Visalia Division Honorable Bret D. Hillman Presiding- Department 2 Examiner notes for probate matters calendared July 27, 2026, that allow for posting: Status: Recommended for Approval (RFA), Appearance Required or Recommended, Approval Conditional Upon, etc. Case Number | Case Name | Type | Status | Comments | VPR054165 | In the Matter of Tomasetti, Steven Lewis |