KIPPER vs NATURA MANAGEMENT, LLC DBA NATURA

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 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 be forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

TENTATIVE RULING:

Moving counsel’s notice of motion does not provide full notice of the Court’s tentative ruling system, as required by Local Rule 1.06. Moving counsel is directed to contact Defendant’s counsel and advise counsel of Local Rule 1.06 and the Court’s tentative ruling procedure and the manner to request a hearing. If moving counsel is unable to contact Defendant’s counsel prior to hearing, moving counsel is ordered to appear at the hearing.

Plaintiff Noah Kipper’s (“Plaintiff”) motion to compel Defendant Natura Management, LLC’s (“Defendant”) further responses to Plaintiff’s request for production of documents, set two, is DENIED.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV002343: KIPPER vs NATURA MANAGEMENT, LLC DBA NATURA 01/07/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set Two in Department 28

This is an employment action. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant is in the business of supply chain management for cannabis companies and offers services such as cultivation, manufacturing, distribution, and delivery of cannabis related products. Plaintiff alleges that during his employment with Defendant, he was required to engage in fraudulent and illegal testing protocols to enhance the potency and purity readings of Defendant’s cannabis plants. Plaintiff alleges that was terminated after he raised concerns about these protocols.

Plaintiff served the subject requests for production, set two, on May 19, 2025. (Declaration of Sunjay Bhatia (“Bhatia Decl.”), ¶ 3.) Defendant served its responses on July 3, 2025. (Id., ¶ 5.) The parties meet and conferred between July 7 and July 31, 2025. (Id., ¶¶ 5-9.) On August 18, 2025, Plaintiff filed the instant motion seeking to compel Defendant’s further responses to Requests Nos. 1-5. Defendant objected to each request on the grounds that (1) it is duplicative of Plaintiff’s requests for production, set one, nos. 9, 11, 12, 14, 23, 29, 30, 39, and 40, (2) that the requested documents are equally available to Plaintiff, and (3) that Plaintiff’s requests are not sufficiently specific due to how certain terms are defined.

Defendant opposes the motion. Defendant argues the motion should be denied because Plaintiff’s separate statement does not comply with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1345, subdivision (c). Defendant also argues the motion should be denied because the requests are duplicative of Plaintiff’s previous requests for production. Finally, Defendants content that Plaintiff failed to establish good cause of the motion as he is already in possession of the responsive documents through the production of documents via subsequent depositions notices.

The Court agrees that Plaintiff’s separate statement fails to comply with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1345, and it the motion is denied on this basis. Rule 3.1345, subdivision (c)(4) requires that separate statement must include, “the text of all definitions, instructions, and other matters required to understand each discovery request and the responses to it.” Additionally, “If the response to a particular discovery request is dependent on the response given to another discovery request, or if the reasons a further response to a particular discovery request is deemed necessary are based on the response to some other discovery request, the other request and the response to it must be set forth.” Here, Plaintiff has not only omitted Defendant’s responses to Plaintiff’s requests for production, set one, nos. 9, 11, 12, 14, 23, 29, 30, 39, and 40, Plaintiff has also failed to include the definitions of “DOCUMENTS” and “COMMUNICATIONS.” As a result, the separate statement is incomplete and the Court

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV002343: KIPPER vs NATURA MANAGEMENT, LLC DBA NATURA 01/07/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set Two in Department 28

cannot evaluate the sufficiency of Defendant’s responses without digging through the record to locate multiple other documents to provide the necessary context to understand the requests. This is sufficient grounds to deny the motion.

However, even if the Court did consider the merits, the motion would still be denied, because the requests for production, set two, at issue on this motion are duplicative of Plaintiff’s requests for production, set one, which Defendant answered on July 16, 2024. (See Minute Order re: Request for Production of Documents, dated 12/26/2024.)

Initially, the Court notes that the cases cited by both parties are inapplicable to the instant dispute as they concern the factual circumstance in which a party missed its statutory deadline to file a motion to compel further responses and then subsequently propounds duplicative discovery requests to avoid the consequences of its waiver of the ability to seek further responses. Here, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to his requests for production, set one, on December 26, 2024. (See Minute Order re: Request for Production of Documents, dated 12/26/2024.)

Thus, Plaintiff did not miss his deadline to file a motion to compel further responses. Nevertheless, Plaintiff cannot simply circumvent the effect of the Court’s order by propounding substantially identical discovery requests. Code of Civil Procedure section 2019.030 provides the applicable rule to this dispute and states, “The court shall restrict the frequency or extent of use of a discovery method provided in Section 2019.010 if it determines . . . [t]he discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative . . .”

The Court has reviewed the two sets of discovery. (See Declaration of Robert Rediger (“Rediger Decl.”, Exs. A, B.) The requests in set two ask for essentially the same document as those requested in set one. For example, request no. 1 in set two seeks, “Any and all DOCUMENTS, including but not limited to text messages and emails, that refer, pertain, or relate to any COMMUNICATIONS between YOU and PLAINTIFF during the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD.” (Separate Statement at 2:8-11.) In set one, at request nos. 10-12, Plaintiff requested:

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10:

Any and all DOCUMENTS that refer, pertain, or relate to any oral or written communications between YOU and PLAINTIFF prior to the day PLAINTIFF commenced working for YOU.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11:

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV002343: KIPPER vs NATURA MANAGEMENT, LLC DBA NATURA 01/07/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set Two in Department 28

Any and all DOCUMENTS that refer, pertain, or relate to any oral or written communications between YOU and PLAINTIFF during PLAINTIFF’s employment with YOU.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 12:

Any and all DOCUMENTS that refer, pertain, or relate to any oral or written communications between YOU and PLAINTIFF since PLAINTIFF’s employment with YOU.

(Rediger Decl., Ex. A at 7:16-26.) Thus, the requests both appear to request all documents and communications made during the time frame relevant to the dispute. Plaintiff generally contends that his second set of requests is “far more specific in that it simply asks for any and all written communications.” (Separate Statement at 3:15-17; see also 6:21-23, 10:2-3, 13:10-11, 16:16-17.) However, Plaintiff fails to articulate how the second set of requests are materially different than those propounded in the first set.

Given the broad definition of “DOCUMENTS” in both sets of requests, text messages and emails were necessarily encompassed in the first set of requests. Additionally, although Request Nos. 2 and 3 in Set Two seek communications and document between specific employees and Plaintiff, these requests are still duplicative of Set One in that Set One’s definition of YOU encompassed Defendant’s employees.

Based on the foregoing, the Court concludes that Plaintiff’s second set of requests is unreasonably duplicative of his first set of requests. Since Plaintiff’s second set of requests for production is unreasonably duplicative of his first set, Defendant’s objection on the basis that the requests are duplicative is SUSTAINED. Thus, the motion to compel further responses is DENIED.

Finally, the issue of whether Defendant subsequently produced documents responsive to these requests in response to Plaintiff’s deposition subpoenas has no bearing on the instant motion, as deposition subpoenas are a different form of discovery.

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is DENIED since the motion to compel was unsuccessful. Defendant’s request for sanctions is GRANTED in the amount of $850, representing two hours at $425 per hour. (See Declaration of Arielle Rediger, ¶¶ 4-6.) Sanctions are imposed against Plaintiff and his counsel jointly and severally. Sanctions to be paid by no later than February 6, 2026, and if not paid by that date, Defendant may prepare for the Court’s signature a formal order granting the sanctions, which may then be enforced as a separate judgment. (Newland v. Superior Court (1995) 40

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV002343: KIPPER vs NATURA MANAGEMENT, LLC DBA NATURA 01/07/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set Two in Department 28

Cal.App.4th 608, 615.)

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1019.5; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1312.)