Motion to compel further responses to requests for production of documents
Browse all Motion to Compel Further Responses rulings statewide →
SUPERIOR COURT, STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA Department 10 Honorable Jeffrey B. El-Hajj Blanca Than, Courtroom Clerk 191 North First Street, San Jose, CA 95113 Telephone: 408-882-2210
DATE: August 13, 2026 TIME: 9:00 A.M. / 9:01 A.M. To contest the ruling, you must call (408) 808-6856 before 4:00 P.M. You must also contact the other side before 4:00 P.M. to inform them that you plan to contest the ruling. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1308(a)(1); Local Rule 8.D.)
**Please specify the issue to be contested when calling the Court and counsel**
Line 3 24CV453591 Ruthann Click LINE 3 or scroll down for ruling. Deadmond v. Ford Motor Company et al.
Line 4 25CV461754 Ryan Roubal v. Click LINE 4 or scroll down for ruling. Curt Frieden et al.
Line 5 25CV470051 Jane Doe v. Defendant Ibrahim Ozturk’s motion to enforce settlement agreement. Notice Ibrahim Ozturk is not proper. Notice was sent to a mailing address that does not match the address listed on plaintiff’s first amended complaint, which was filed before the motion to enforce the settlement agreement. It is unclear from the record whether defendant has been served the first amended complaint. Out of an abundance of caution, the matter is continued to October 15, 2026, at 9:00 a.m., in Department 10, to allow for proper service of the motion. Defendant is directed to serve the motion and all supporting documents, with a new notice listing the continued hearing date, to the P.O. Box listed on the first amended complaint. The court does not grant leave to supplement the motion with additional argument. The court will prepare the order.
Line 6 25CV470051 Jane Doe v. Plaintiff Jane Doe’s motion for rescission of purported settlement agreement. Ibrahim Ozturk Notice is not proper. There is no proof of service. The notice states that it “does not seek an order, hearing, or ex parte relief.” But in an abundance of caution the court will not deny the motion and will instead continue the matter to October 15, 2026, at 9:00 a.m., in Department 10, to allow for proper service of the motion. Plaintiff is directed to serve defendant the motion, with a new notice listing the continued hearing date. The court does not grant leave to supplement the motion with additional argument. The court will prepare the order.
Line 7 25CV471961 Tyreece Baldon Click LINE 7 or scroll down for ruling. et al. v. Jake Ta et al.
Calendar Line 4 Case Name: Ryan Roubal v. Curt Frieden et al. Case No.: 25CV461754
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?”
Plaintiff Ryan Roubal’s motion to compel further responses to requests for production of documents, set one, against defendant Everflow Technologies Inc (Everflow). Notice is proper and the motion is opposed by Everflow. Plaintiff sued Everflow and others, alleging among other things causes of action for whistleblower retaliation and wrongful termination. Four requests for production are at issue: Nos. 55, 56, 57, and 60.
Parties are generally entitled to “discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action or to the determination of any motion made in that action, if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2017.010.)
Issues Relevant to All Four Requests
Everflow made an initial production of documents as well as supplemental productions. Everflow Bates stamped the documents it produced, but later decided to reduce and renumber the pages. That led to multiple documents having the same Bates number. Everflow’s productions also fail to identify the “specific request number to which the documents respond.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.280, subd. (a).)
Everflow asserted objections under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34. That objection is unwarranted because this is not federal court. Everflow asserted objections based on attorney-client privilege, but did not provide the required privilege log or other “sufficient factual information for other parties to evaluate the merits of that claim.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.240, subd. (c)(1).) And Everflow’s vagueness and overbreadth objections are without merit.
Everflow cites an unpublished California trial court decision as support for an argument in the opposition. Unpublished California decisions cannot be cited.
Request for Production No. 55: This request seeks documents related to plaintiff’s complaints about Everflow’s compliance with SOC 2 standards. Everflow’s response is inconsistent. Everflow states that no responsive documents exist following a diligent search. But Everflow also asserts that the request “seeks documents protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege and/or attorney work-product doctrine.” Plaintiff also argues in reply that he identified a specific July 2024 Slack conversation with Emma Rogers and a legal contractor David Steckbeck that Everflow has not produced. GRANTED. Everflow must provide a further response that resolves the inconsistency and produces all documents responsive to the request. If Everflow withholds documents under a claim of privilege, it must provide a privilege log.
Request for Production Nos. 56 and 57: These requests seek documents referring or relating to: (No. 56) Everflow’s SOC 2 compliance audits, assessments, or reports; and (No. 57) third-party auditor concerns, complaints, or findings regarding Everflow’s SOC 2 compliance. Everflow appears to acknowledge that it is withholding responsive documents. 13
Everflow states it produced SOC 2 reports for 2022 and 2023 as the documents “most plainly encompassed by the request.” Everflow also argues it produced “documents responsive to a reasonable interpretation” of the request. That is not the standard for discovery. GRANTED. Everflow must produce all documents responsive to the requests. If Everflow withholds documents under a claim of privilege, it must provide a privilege log.
Request for Production No. 60: This request seeks documents related to plaintiff’s reports and complaints about Everflow’s publisher onboarding process and data privacy concerns. Everflow’s response is inconsistent. Everflow states that no responsive documents exist following a diligent search. But Everflow also asserts that the request “seeks documents protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege and/or attorney work-product doctrine.” Everflow also acknowledges in its opposition that it produced “communications located from Plaintiff that referenced the ‘publisher onboarding process,’ as well as Slack messages despite the absence of any responsive reports or complaints.” (Opposition, 11:8-14.)
GRANTED. Everflow must provide a further response that resolves the inconsistency and produces all documents responsive to the request. If Everflow withholds documents under a claim of privilege, it must provide a privilege log.
Sanctions
Plaintiff is entitled to sanctions. Among other things, Everflow cited an inapplicable Federal Rule of Civil Procedure; asserted a claim of privilege without providing a privilege log; provided inconsistent and contradictory responses; and withheld responsive documents without substantial justification. Everflow and its counsel of record, jointly and severally, must pay plaintiff sanctions in the amount of $3,000 (consisting of six hours at $500/hour). Those sanctions must be paid no later than September 15, 2026. Everflow’s request for sanctions is denied.
Conclusion
The motion to compel is GRANTED. Everflow is ordered to provide supplemental verified responses, as described in this order. Everflow must consecutively number all responsive documents with a new set of Bates-stamping that will supersede the previous two Bates-ranges. Everflow must identify the specific request number to which each Bates range responds. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.280, subd. (a).) Any claim of privilege must be supported by a privilege log. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.240, subd. (c)(1).) And Everflow and its counsel of record, jointly and severally, must pay plaintiff sanctions in the amount of $3,000 (consisting of six hours at $500/hour). The supplemental production and sanctions are due no later than September 15, 2026.
The court will prepare the order.
- oo0oo -
14