| Case | County / Judge | Motion | Ruling | Date |
|---|
Notice Of Motion And Motion For Protective Order And Request For Sanctions
Set for Law and Motion/Discovery Calendar on Wednesday January 14, 2026, Line 9. Defendants' motion for protective order is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.
Plaintiffs correctly note that the motion is untimely. Under Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.060(a), defendants needed to "promptly" make this motion. Here, defendants brought this motion on 12/10/25, which was after their stipulated production date of 11/24/25. (Keninck Decl., pars. 6, 8; Chiosso Decl., par. 3, Ex. A; CCP 2031.300.)
In any event, the court still has authority to entertain this motion. (Stadish v. Superior Court (1999) 71 CCal.App.4th 1130, 1144 ["[U]pon a proper showing a party may-even after it has waived its right to object to the production of documents, and has produced most of the documents requested-seek a protective order restricting dissemination of the documents."].)
The parties do not dispute that defendants own hundreds of apartments. Plaintiffs' discovery (Requests for Production 115-142) seeks (1) all documents regarding all government agency complaints, construction and health violations, etc. and (2) defendants' responses for any owned real estate for a 10-year period.
On the one hand, defendants' conduct with regard to other units/properties is probative. (Duncan v. Kihagi (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 519.) On the other hand, the requests are facially overbroad (Kihagi only involved two witnesses) and the court limits them. Defendants shall produce all documents that relate to water-related complaints/violations and mold-related violations/complaints and defendants' responses at 515 John Muir Drive within the last 7 years. Production to occur within 15 days of notice of entry of this order.
Sanctions denied as both sides acted with substantial justification. Prior to the time set for hearing, Moving Party shall lodge by email to contestdept302tr@sftc.org a proposed order containing the above text verbatim.
For the 9:00 a.m. calendar, all attorneys and parties may appear in Department 302 remotely or in person. Remote hearings will be conducted by videoconference using Zoom. (Dept. 302 Zoom ID 160 409 7690; Passcode 516287.) To appear remotely at the hearing, go to the court's website at sfsuperiorcourt.org under "Online Services," navigate to "Tentative Rulings," and click on the appropriate link, or dial the corresponding phone number.
Extracted by Gemini Flash from the ruling text. Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
Powered by Gemini Flash Lite. Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.
Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to contestdept302tr@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number. The text of the email shall include the name and contact information, including email address, of the attorney or party who will appear at the hearing.
The court no longer provides a court reporter in the Law & Motion Department. Parties may retain their own reporter, who may appear in the courtroom or remotely. A retained reporter must be a California certified court reporter (CSR), for only a CSR's transcript may be used in California courts. If a CSR is being retained, include in your email all of the following: their name, CSR and telephone numbers, and their individual work email address. =(302/JMQ) | |