SILVA vs FRANKENSTEIN MOTORS, INC., et al.

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.

23CV007918: SILVA vs FRANKENSTEIN MOTORS, INC., et al. 08/11/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents (Set One) in Department 16D

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

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Kelly Silva’s (“Plaintiff”) motion for an order compelling Defendant Frankenstein Motors Inc. (“Defendant Frankenstein”) to comply with its November 15, 2024, written statement of compliance in response to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, Nos. 1-5, 7, 10-111 is ruled upon as follows.

Overview

This action arises out of a motor vehicle accident. Plaintiff initiated this action on September 5, 2023 and filed her operative Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) on May 28, 2026. Plaintiff’s SAC brings causes of action for negligent supervision against Defendant Frankenstein and negligence per se against Defendant Frankenstein and Defendant Bruce Adrian McClaskey (“Defendant McClaskey”) (collectively “Defendants”).

On September 7, 2024, Plaintiff served Defendant Frankenstein with Plaintiff’s first set of Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, (the “Requests”). (Declaration of Daniel J. Hanecak [“Hanecak Decl.”] ¶ 4, Exhibit 1.) On November 15, 2024, Defendant Frankenstein served untimely and unverified response to the Requests. (Id., at ¶ 5, Exhibit 2.) Defendant Frankenstein’s responses contained objections. (Ibid.) Defendant Frankenstein’s verification to the Requests was served on November 21, 2024. (Id., at Exhibit 3.)

On or about November 22, 2024, Defendants’ counsel served a document production via email. (Supplemental Declaration of Daniel J. Hanecak [“Hanecak Supp. Decl”], at ¶ 4.) Plaintiff’s counsel avers that “neither the correspondence nor the production identified which Defendant produced the documents” and that the production was ambiguous “as to which Defendant was responding to the corresponding request.” (Id., at ¶ 8.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV007918: SILVA vs FRANKENSTEIN MOTORS, INC., et al. 08/11/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents (Set One) in Department 16D

Plaintiff now moves for an order compelling Defendant Frankenstein to comply with his “November 15, 2024 written statement of compliance in response to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of Documents, Set On (“RFP-1”), Nos. 1-5, 7, 10-11.” (Notice of Motion at 2:1-4.)

Defendants oppose, filing an omnibus opposition to this present motion and to Plaintiff’s concurrently filed and scheduled motion to compel Defendant Frankenstein to comply with its November 15, 2024, written statement of compliance in response to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, Nos. 1-5, 7, 10-11. In opposition, Defendants reason that, “[b]ecause responses were served to the discovery requests at issue and because there was a document production of 153 pages” Plaintiff should have “brought a motion to compel further responses based on whatever deficiencies the Plaintiff identified in the responses ” (Opposition at 3:7-9.)

Because Plaintiff’s deadline to bring a motion to compel further responses has passed, Defendants contends that this motion “is an attempt to side-step the motion to compel further responses deadline, which would be an abuse of the discovery process and grounds to deny the motion.” (Id., at 3:9-12.)

Defendants further acknowledge that their responses to the subject requests are “not code compliant” and further contend that the responses “indicate that there will only be a production if the documents exist and are not privileged.” (Id., at 4:5-8.) Defendants further state:

Apparently[,] these responses created an expectation by the Plaintiff that documents would be produced, but any such expectation by the Plaintiff is reckless. These responses contain several conditions that must exist before a production would be made. Plaintiff fails to explain in his [sic] motion why Plaintiff did not move to compel further conde compliant responses ”

(Id., at 4:11-14.)

Plaintiff also filed an omnibus reply in support of her concurrently scheduled motions. In reply, Plaintiff argues that “Defendants submit an ambiguous omnibus-style opposition incorrectly styled as an “‘Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One.’” (Opposition at 2:16-20.) Plaintiff contends that the omnibus opposition is “ambiguous” in that it “does not specify which of Plaintiff’s motions it opposes” and thus requests that the Court exercise its

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV007918: SILVA vs FRANKENSTEIN MOTORS, INC., et al. 08/11/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents (Set One) in Department 16D

discretion to strike the opposition under Code of Civil Procedure section 436. (Id., at 2:22-26.)[1]

Plaintiff further argues that this motion is timely because there is no deadline for filing a motion to compel compliance and that Defendants provide no legal support for their contention that Plaintiff filed the incorrect motion. (See Id., at 3:5-19.)

Next, Plaintiff contends that Defendants’ opposition “fail[s] to address the critical deficiencies” documented in the moving papers and supplemental declaration. (Id., at 4:4-5.) Specifically, Plaintiff reiterates that the production did not identify which defendant produced which documents, which makes it impossible for Plaintiff match production to responses and that the bates numbering showed gaps. (Id., at 4:1-11.) Plaintiff also argues that the opposition “fail[s] to explain the wholesale lack of production for multiple requests to which they stated they would comply” nor do Defendants “explain the missing Bates pages, the duplicate files, or the ambiguous attribution.” (Ibid.)

Finally, Plaintiff contends that it made extensive meet-and-confer efforts before filing this motion, and that Defendants failed to demonstrate they acted with substantial justification to avoid sanctions. (See Id., at 4:12-5:5:14.)

Discussion

As a threshold matter, Defendants filed an omnibus “sur-reply” on August 6, 2026. The Court did not consider this filing as it was not authorized by Code of Civil Procedure section 1005 and since Defendants did not otherwise seek or obtain leave of court to file the same.

Additionally, the Court also denies Plaintiff’s request to strike Defendants’ omnibus opposition under Code of Civil Procedure section 436. First, Code of Civil Procedure section 436 provides that a court may, upon motion, or in its own discretion, strike out all or part of any pleading. (Code Civ. Proc., § 436.) Defendants’ opposition to this motion is not a pleading. Second, while Defendants could have taken more care in the titling of their opposition, the opposition, or the fact that it is an omnibus opposition, is not so ambiguous that it prohibits a substantive response from Plaintiff—a fact which is evidenced by Plaintiff’s filing of substantive reply (which is also an omnibus filing).

The Court now turns to the merits of Plaintiff’s motion.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV007918: SILVA vs FRANKENSTEIN MOTORS, INC., et al. 08/11/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents (Set One) in Department 16D

“If the party fails to make a production in accordance with its statement of compliance, the opposing party may file another motion to compel seeking compliance.” (Board of Registered Nursing v. Superior Court (2021) 59 Cal.App.5th 1011, 1033 [citing Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.320].)

A motion to compel compliance as agreed with a request for production of documents is based upon a showing that the respondents failed “to permit an inspection ‘in accordance with that party’s statement of compliance.’” (Standon Co. v. Superior Court (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 898, 903. See also Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.320, subd. (a).) “No time limit is placed on such a motion.” (Standon Co., supra, 225 Cal.App.3d at 903.)

As discussed above, Plaintiff seeks an order compelling Defendant Frankenstein’s compliance with its response to Request Nos. 1-5, 7, and 10-11.

Turning first to Request No. 7, the Court observes that in its November 15, 2024 response to this request, Defendant Frankenstein did not state that he would comply with this particular request. Indeed, Defendant Frankenstein responded to Request No. 7 as follows:

Objection. This request seeks documents that are neither relevant nor likely to lead to the discovery of relevant information. This request further violates Responding Party’s right to privacy and the right to privacy of third parties.

(Hanecak Decl., at Exhibit 2, 6:3-6.)

Accordingly, given that Defendant Frankenstein did not state that it would produce documents responsive to Request No. 7, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED as to Request No.

7.

Turning to the remaining Requests at issue (i.e., Requests Nos. 1-5, and 10-11), the Court observes that Defendant Frankenstein’s responses contain a mixture of representations that it will comply with the subject Request and objections. Defendant Frankenstein also states in response to a number of Requests that “[i]f any documents are withheld due to privilege, [he] will produce a privilege log which identifies each withheld document.” (See, e.g., Id., Exhibit 2 at 4:4-9.)

First, the Court agrees with Plaintiff’s argument that the manner in which documents were produced by Defendants’ (i.e., collectively, without any designation as to which

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV007918: SILVA vs FRANKENSTEIN MOTORS, INC., et al. 08/11/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents (Set One) in Department 16D

Defendant was producing which document) makes it impossible for Plaintiff match the production to responses. In this regard, Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.280, subdivision (a) states:

Any documents or category of documents produced in response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling shall be identified with the specific request number to which the documents respond.

Defendant Frankenstein’s production does not comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.280 because Defendant Frankenstein did not identify what documents are responsive to which requests. To the extent that Defendant Frankenstein argues that it specified that certain documents were responsive to Request Nos. 4, and 5, such an argument fails because it is not at all clear if these documents are contended to be produced in compliance with Defendant Frankenstein’s responses to Request Nos. 4 and 5 or Defendant McClaskey’s responses to Requests 4 and 5. (See, Hanecak Supp. Decl., at Exhibit 9.) Thus, Defendant Frankenstein shall provide a production that complies with section 2031.280.

Moreover, Defendants’ opposition to this motion does not provide any evidence that all unprivileged, responsive documents have been produced in conformity with the statements of compliance. Rather, Defendants’ counsel summarily avers that

According to the file that this firm obtained from legacy counsel, legacy counsel served Plaintiff with responses to the requests for production that is the subject of this motion on November 15, 2024, and 153 pages of documents were produced to Plaintiff.

(Declaration of Bryan Carney at ¶ 4.)

Thus, to the extent that Defendant Frankenstein possesses additional unprivileged documents responsive to Requests Nos. 1-5 and 10-11, these documents must also be produced.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s motion to compel compliance with Request Nos. 1-5 and 10 is GRANTED.

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is DENIED given the mixed result of this motion and as sanctions would be unjust under the circumstances.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV007918: SILVA vs FRANKENSTEIN MOTORS, INC., et al. 08/11/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents (Set One) in Department 16D

Disposition

Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part such that no later than August 25, 2026, Defendant Frankenstein shall provide a production that complies with Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.280. Moreover, to the extent that Defendant Frankenstein possesses additional, unprivileged, documents responsive to Requests Nos. 1-5 and 10, which have not been produced, Defendant Frankenstein also must produce these documents no later than August 25, 2026.

Plaintiff’s motion as to Request No. 7 is DENIED.

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is also DENIED as set forth above.

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc. §1019.5; CRC Rule 3.1312.)

[1] Despite objecting to the fact that Defendants filed an omnibus opposition, the Court

observes that Plaintiff too filed an omnibus reply in support of both her concurrently scheduled motions to compel compliance.