Linda Dashiell v. Louie Goros

SUPERIOR COURT, STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA Department 12 Honorable Nahal Iravani-Sani, Presiding Courtroom Clerk, Ryan Nguyen 191 North First Street, San Jose, CA 95113 Telephone: (408) 882-2230

DATE: 07/31/2026 TIME: 9:00 A.M. and 9:01 A.M.

LINE # CASE # CASE TITLE RULING LINE 1 21CV376210 Weichiao Ku et al. MOTION FOR TURNOVER ORDER vs Harald Herchen Please Ctrl Click (or scroll down to) Line 1 LINE 2 24CV431226 Kimberly Chaffee MOTION TO COMPEL vs Nimisha Garg et al. Parties are ordered to appear personally in court.

LINE 3 24CV443503 Linda Dashiell MOTION TO COMPEL vs Louie Goros Please Ctrl Click (or scroll down to) Line 3 LINES 4-6 24CV449460 Anthony Alaimo DEMURRER (x2) and MOTION TO STRIKE vs Rosa Pineda et al Demurrers (x2) to the FAC are Unopposed and Sustained Without Leave to Amend [court previously sustained demurrer to complaint with leave to amend where no opposition was filed by Plaintiff]; Motion to Strike rendered Moot by sustaining of demurrers; Notice of Non-Opposition filed by defendant Rosa Pineda regarding Demurrer and Motion to Strike, filed 7/24/26

LINE 7 24CV452135 Bryana Manchester MOTION: SUMMARY ADJUDICATION vs American Honda Motor Please Ctrl Click (or scroll down to) Line 7 Company, Inc. et al LINE 8 25CV459782 Amrit Singh MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES vs Ford Motor Company, Please Ctrl Click (or scroll down to) Line 8 a Delaware Corporation

Calendar Line 3 Case Name: Linda Dashiell v. Louie Goros et al. Case No. 24CV443503

Discovery in this matter has become increasingly contentious. The Court has conducted an Informal Discovery Conference and ruled on two Motions to Quash, limiting the scope of discovery. Yet the parties remain unable to resolve discovery disputes through meaningful meet-and-confer efforts. Twenty-four discovery items remain in dispute. The Court finds that continued piecemeal judicial resolution of recurring discovery disputes is unlikely to promote the efficient management of this litigation.

Accordingly, the Court finds that appointment of a discovery referee pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 639(a)(5) may be warranted to facilitate the orderly, efficient, and expeditious resolution of future discovery disputes and to conserve judicial resources.

The parties are strongly encouraged to meet and confer before the 7/31/26 hearing regarding the selection of a mutually agreeable discovery referee and, if agreement is reached, to be prepared to stipulate to the appointment of a referee pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 638.

If the parties are unable to reach agreement, the Court intends to appoint a discovery referee pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 639(a)(5). In that event, the Court will provide a list of three qualified discovery referees. Each side shall be permitted to strike one referee from the list, after which the Court will appoint one of the remaining referees. The Court's tentative allocation is that the referee's fees and costs shall be shared equally among the parties, subject to reconsideration upon a noticed application supported by competent evidence.