The People of the State of California v National CPR Foundation LLC et al

"[T]he lodestar is the basic fee for comparable legal services in the community; it may be adjusted by the Court based on factors including, as relevant herein, (1) the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved, (2) the skill displayed in presenting them, (3) the extent to which the nature of the litigation precluded other employment by the attorneys, (4) the contingent nature of the fee award." (Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1132.)

"The purpose of such adjustment is to fix a fee at the fair market value for the particular action. In effect, the Court determines, retrospectively, whether the litigation involved a contingent risk or required extraordinary legal skill justifying augmentation of the unadorned lodestar in order to approximate the fair market rate for such services." (Ibid.)

"A lodestar cross-check is simply a quantitative method for bringing a measure of the time spent by counsel into the trial Court's reasonableness determination; as such, it is not likely to radically alter the incentives created by a Court's use of the percentage method. ... the lodestar calculation, when used in this manner, does not override the trial Court's primary determination of the fee as a percentage of the common fund and thus does not impose an absolute maximum or minimum on the potential fee award." (Laffitte, supra, 1 Cal.5th at p. 505.)

Here, the Plaintiff will seek up to 35 percent of the GSA as attorney fees. The Court finds this request is within the range of approval. The Court will apply the above standards to determine the actual attorney fee award at the final approval hearing. Plaintiff shall provide evidence of the reasonableness and necessity of these attorney fees when he files his final approval papers.

(9) Litigation Costs

Plaintiff seeks reimbursement of litigation costs up to $100,000. According to Plaintiff, these costs pertain to a labor economist, a mediation fee, and other costs. (Blakely Decl., P. 24.) The Court will evaluate these costs at the final approval hearing. Plaintiff shall provide evidence of the reasonableness and necessity of these costs when he files his final approval papers.

(10) Incentive Award

Incentive awards to a class action Plaintiff are permitted based on a number of factors. (See Clark v. American Residential Services LLC (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 785, 804 (Clark); Golba v. Dick's Sporting Goods, Inc. (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 1251, 1272 (Golba).)

Courts have determined an "incentive award is appropriate 'if it is necessary to induce an individual to participate in the suit,' and have noted 'relevant factors' to consider in deciding whether such an award is warranted. [Citation.] Those factors include 'the actions the Plaintiff has taken to protect the interests of the class, the degree to which the class has benefitted from those actions, and the amount of time and effort the Plaintiff expended in pursuing the litigation.' [Citation.] Federal district Courts have identified other factors as well, including 'the risk to the class representative in commencing suit, both financial and otherwise,' 'the notoriety and personal difficulties encountered by the class representative,' the duration of the litigation, and 'the personal benefit (or lack thereof) enjoyed by the class representative as a result of the litigation." (Clark, supra, 175 Cal.App.4th at p. 804.)

"Incentive awards to class representatives are intended to compensate class representatives for the work and risk undertaken on behalf of the class, to reimburse expenses incurred in the class litigation, and sometimes to recognize the willingness of class representatives to act as a private attorney general. [Citation.] An incentive award may be appropriate to induce someone to serve as a class representative. In determining whether to make an incentive award, the Court may consider (1) the risk, both financial and otherwise, the class representative faced in bringing the suit; (2) the notoriety and personal difficulties encountered by the class representative; (3) the amount of time and effort spent by the class representative; (4) the duration of the litigation; and (5) the personal benefit received by the class representative as a result of the litigation. [Citation.]" (Golba, supra, 238 Cal.App.4th at p. 1272.)

The Court will evaluate the proposed incentive award in light of the above standards at the final approval hearing. Plaintiff shall provide evidence supporting the requested incentive award with his final approval papers.

Tentative Ruling: The People of the State of California v National CPR Foundation LLC et al Tentative Ruling: The People of the State of California v National CPR Foundation LLC et al Case Number

Case Type Civil Law & Motion Hearing Date / Time Wed, 07/01/2026 - 10:00 Nature of Proceedings 1. Motion for Protective Order; 2. Motion to Compel Tentative Ruling Plaintiff: Christopher Dalbey, Michael Hestrin, Evan Goldsmith Defendants: Sean Ponist Acknowledgements The Court acknowledges and appreciates the professional work done by counsel in the case. The case has been contentious; acrimonious at times. The Court apologizes for the length of this Ruling, but I cannot get everything done in one sitting and need to keep my notes all in one place. Issues (1) Motion for Protective Order (2) Motion to Compel RULINGS For the reasons set out below: 1. The Motion for a Protective Order is GRANTED but the request for sanctions is DENIED.

2. The Motion to Compel is DENIED.

3. The Pretrial Conference set for 7/22/26 at 11:30 am is confirmed. All trial documents are due one week in advance [in limine motions; witness lists with time estimates; exhibits exchanged; customized jury instructions and jury verdict forms; trial briefs]. The jury panel comes over on 7/23/26 at 9am.

Analysis

There are two motions before the Court: (1) a motion by the People for a protective order (filed on May 14, 2026); and (2) a motion by the Defendants to compel further responses to discovery (filed on June 9, 2026). [The motion to compel was advanced to this hearing date by order on a stipulation filed on June 18, 2026. Trial is now set for July 22.]

Motion for Protective Order

The motion relates to a deposition notice to the person most qualified of the Plaintiff. Because this is an enforcement action by the People, such a motion is evaluated under the standard for a deposition of counsel set forth in Carehouse Convalescent Hospital v. Superior Court (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 1558: "In considering the propriety of deposing opposing counsel in a particular case, California applies a three-pronged test .... The test is: "First, does the proponent have other practicable means to obtain the information?

Second, is the information crucial to the preparation of the case? Third, is the information subject to a privilege?' [Citation.] "Each of these prongs poses an independent hurdle to deposing an adversary's counsel; any one of them may be sufficient to defeat the attempted attorney deposition." [Citation.] The proponent of the deposition 'has the burden of proof to establish the predicate circumstances for the first two prongs,' while the party opposing discovery has the burden of establishing the preliminary facts to support any claim of privilege.'" (People v.

Superior Court (Credit One Bank, N.A.) (2025) 112 Cal.App.5th 804, 817.)

The People's Motion for Protective Order Filed 5/14/26; 28 pages; summarized: This Motion is based on this Notice and Motion, the attached Memorandum of Points and Authorities, the attached Declaration of Evan H. Goldsmith ("Goldsmith Decl."), in support thereof, the complete files and records in the above-captioned action, and on such arguments and authorities as may be presented at hearing. As set forth in the Goldsmith Declaration, this Motion follows written and telephonic correspondence with Defendants on April 3, 2026, in which the parties discussed the People's objections to proceeding with the Deposition, and in which the People offered an alternative method of obtaining Defendants' requested discovery. Accordingly, the People respectfully request this Court enter a protective order pursuant to the [Proposed] Order submitted herewith and issue sanctions against Defendants.

On May 7, 2026, Plaintiff, the People of the State of California, received a Notice of Deposition from Defendants, seeking the deposition of the Person Most Qualified to testify for the People. The Deposition Notice listed fourteen topics for examination. On May 11, 2026, the People met and conferred with Defendants regarding the Deposition Notice. The People had previously advised Defendants that under People v. Superior Court of Riverside County (Credit One Bank) (2025) 112 Cal. App. 4th 804, a Defendant must show "extremely good cause" to proceed with a PMQ deposition of the People.

The People further explained that, under the Credit One Bank decision, whether a PMQ deposition of the People is permissible is analyzed under the same standard as the question of whether the deposition of a party attorney is appropriate, using the factors enunciated in Carehouse Convalescent Hospital v. Superior Court (2006) 143 Cal. App. 4th 1558 (Carehouse).

The People and Defendants agreed that Defendants would issue the PMQ deposition notice, and that the People would either serve objections to it and Defendants would bring a motion to compel, or the People would move for a protective order, which would obviate the need for the People to produce a witness unless ordered by the Court. The People file this motion for a protective order, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.420 to prohibit Defendants from taking the PMQ deposition as outlined in Defendants' Deposition Notice.

The People have already provided responses to extensive written discovery, including answers to 83 Special Interrogatories, 21 Form Interrogatories, 61 Requests for Admission, and 76 Requests for Production. This included over 4,000 pages of photographs, web captures, communications, and other relevant documents. As a result, the People have provided the majority of the information Defendants seek to obtain through a PMQ deposition. What little information Defendants do not have can be obtained through additional written discovery, or if necessary, written deposition. Finally, as discussed, much of the information Defendants seek to elicit at a PMQ deposition of the People is either covered by privilege or expert discovery rules.

A Defendant in a civil law enforcement action brought by a district attorney in the name of the People may notice a PMQ deposition of the People under Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.230. (Credit One Bank N.A., supra, 112 Cal.App.5th at p. 821.) If the People seek a protective order, however, the party who noticed deposition "must show 'extremely' good cause" to proceed with it. "[D]eposing the People amounts to deposing the People's counsel." As a result, when a party seeks to take a PMQ deposition of the People, Courts analyze whether the deposition should proceed using the factors enunciated in Carehouse, supra, 143 Cal. App. 4th 1558.

Carehouse poses three questions to determine whether a deposition should proceed. "First, does the proponent have other practicable means to obtain the information? Second, is the information crucial to the preparation of the case? Third, is the information subject to a privilege?" "Each of these prongs poses an independent hurdle . . .; any one of them may be sufficient to defeat" the deposition. "The proponent of the deposition 'has the burden of proof to establish the predicate circumstances for the first two prongs,' while the party opposing discovery has the burden of establishing the preliminary facts to support any claim of privilege." (Credit One Bank N.A., supra, 112 Cal.App.5th at p. 817.)

Here, Defendants have made no attempt to establish the predicate circumstances for the first two Carehouse prongs as they relate to any of the fourteen topics in their Deposition Notice. With regard to the third Carehouse prong, as demonstrated below, thirteen of the fourteen topics listed in the Deposition Notice seek information protected by the work product doctrine, official information privilege, the deliberative process privilege, or expert discovery rules. The following evaluates Defendants' deposition topics under the three Carehouse Factors. All of Defendants' proposed topics are improper for an oral PMQ deposition based on at least one of these factors. As a result, this Court should enter a protective order prohibiting Defendants from proceeding with a PMQ Deposition on the topics included in the Deposition Notice.

A. Defendants have Other Practicable Means to Obtain the Information.

Under the first Carehouse factor, the proponent of the deposition must show that they have no other practicable means of obtaining the information sought by the deposition. Here, Defendants have other practicable means of obtaining the information it seeks in every one of its non-privileged examination topics. In fact, through written discovery, the People already provided Defendants the information they seek in all of their Topics for Examination.

Specifically:

Topic 1: "Facts and information concerning YOUR determination that OSHA required CPR training programs to include a hands-on / in-person component to comply with its guidance, including when such determination was made, who made the determination, the qualifications of said person(s) making the determination and the basis for such determination as well as when any hands-on / in-person training component is required." In response to Defendants' Requests for Production, Sets One and Two, and Defendants' Special Interrogatories, Set One, the People have already produced every potentially relevant, non-privileged, non-protected document and communication in the People's possession, and identified every potentially-relevant, non-privileged, non-protected fact.

Topic 2: "Facts and information concerning YOUR efforts, if any, to stop, prevent or otherwise alter DEFENDANTS' purportedly wrongful conduct, and/or that of other online CPR training providers, prior to filing YOUR COMPLAINT as well as any prior enforcement actions against online CPR training providers." In response to Defendants' Requests for Production, Sets One and Two, and Defendants' Special Interrogatories, Set One, the People have already produced every potentially relevant, non-privileged, non-protected document and communication in the People's possession, and identified every potentially relevant, non-privileged, non-protected fact.

Topic 3: "Facts and information concerning YOUR efforts, if any, to provide fair notice to DEFENDANTS, and/or other online CPR training providers, of the People's new interpretation of OSHA requirements and enforcement actions prior to filing YOUR COMPLAINT." In response to Defendants' Requests for Production, Sets One and Two, and Defendants' Special Interrogatories, Set One, the People have already produced every potentially relevant, non-privileged, non-protected document and communication in the People's possession, and identified every potentially relevant, non-privileged, non-protected fact.

Topic 4: "Facts and information concerning YOUR determination that AHA guidelines required CPR training programs to include a hands-on component to comply with its guidance, including when such determination was made, who made the determination and the qualifications of said person(s) making the determination and the basis for such determination as well as how, if at all, DEFENDANTS' programs fail to comply with AHA guidelines." In response to Defendants' Requests for Production, Sets One and Two, and Defendants' Special Interrogatories, Set One, the People have already produced every potentially relevant, non-privileged, non-protected document and communication in the People's possession, and identified every potentially-relevant, non-privileged, non-protected fact.

Topic 5: "Facts and information concerning any notice that YOU provided to DEFENDANTS, other online CPR training providers or the general public, regarding YOUR determination that, in order to claim compliance with AHA guidelines, a CPR training provider must include a hands-on / in-person component or opportunity for them to conform to this interpretation." In response to Defendants' Requests for Production, Sets One and Two, and Defendants' Special Interrogatories, Set One, the People have already produced every potentially relevant, non-privileged, non-protected document and communication in the People's possession, and identified every potentially-relevant, non-privileged, non-protected fact.

Topic 6: "Facts and information concerning any consumer complaints against DEFENDANTS, including any online complaints as well as complaints to any District Attorney Offices as well as any interviews of consumers about DEFENDANTS or online CPR training providers." In response to Defendants' Requests for Production, Sets One and Two, and Defendants' Special Interrogatories, Set One, the People have already produced every potentially relevant, non-privileged, non-protected document and communication in the People's possession, and identified every potentially-relevant, non-privileged, non-protected fact.

Topic 7: "Facts and information concerning the allegedly problematic language on DEFENDANTS' website(s), the duration of such language, changes to the language and the duration of those changes." In response to Defendants' Requests for Production, Sets One and Two, and Defendants' Special Interrogatories, Set One, the People have already produced every potentially relevant, non-privileged, non-protected document and communication in the People's possession, and identified every potentially relevant, non-privileged, non-protected fact.

Topic 8: "Facts and information concerning OSHA compliance requirements, including OSHA guidelines, regulations, best practices, letters of interpretation as well as any hands-on/in-person training requirements and employer responsibilities for compliance with OSHA." In response to Defendants' Requests for Production, Sets One and Two, and Defendants' Special Interrogatories, Set One, the People have already produced every potentially relevant, non-privileged, non-protected document and communication in the People's possession, and identified every potentially-relevant, non-privileged, non-protected fact.

Topic 9: "Facts and information concerning AHA CPR training standards or guidelines, AHA online training program(s), any hands-on / in-person training requirements thereof, and any effort by the People to provide fair notice of their interpretation of the requirements to DEFENDANTS or other online CPR training providers." In response to Defendants' Requests for Production, Sets One and Two, and Defendants' Special Interrogatories, Set One, the People have already produced every potentially relevant, non-privileged, non-protected document and communication in the People's possession, and identified every potentially-relevant, non-privileged, non-protected fact.

Topic 10: "Facts and information concerning the scope of the consumers alleged misled by NCPRF's advertising, including the number of such consumers, the names and contact information of such consumers, how specifically such consumers were misled as well as the actual harm to any such consumers." In response to Defendants' Requests for Production, Sets One and Two, and Defendants' Special Interrogatories, Set One, the People have already produced every potentially relevant, non-privileged, non-protected document and communication in the People's possession, and identified every potentially-relevant, non-privileged, non-protected fact.

Topic 11: "Facts and information concerning the application of Cal/OSHA for California consumers of DEFENDANTS' products." In response to Defendants' Requests for Production, Sets One and Two, and Defendants' Special Interrogatories, Set One, the People have already produced every potentially relevant, non-privileged, non-protected document and communication in the People's possession, and identified every potentially-relevant, non-privileged, non-protected fact.

Topic 12: "Facts and information concerning requirements to claim that a company is accredited and why NCPRF purportedly should not have claimed such." In response to Defendants' Requests for Production, Sets One and Two, and Defendants' Special Interrogatories, Set One, the People have already produced every potentially relevant, non-privileged, non-protected document and communication in the People's possession, and identified every potentially-relevant, non-privileged, non-protected fact.

Topic 13: "Facts and information concerning DEFENDANTS' strikethrough pricing, including market prices for similar products at or around the time thereof." In response to Defendants' Requests for Production, Sets One and Two, and Defendants' Special Interrogatories, Set One, the People have already produced every potentially relevant, non-privileged, non-protected document and communication in the People's possession, and identified every potentially-relevant, non-privileged, non-protected fact.

Topic 14: "Facts and information concerning all discussions with DEFENDANTS' prior counsel regarding changes that YOU asked them to make to NCPRF's website and DEFENDANTS' compliance therewith and changes to their websites thereafter." In response to Defendants' Requests for Production, Sets One and Two, and Defendants' Special Interrogatories, Set One, the People have already produced every potentially relevant, non-privileged, non-protected document and communication in the People's possession, and identified every potentiallyrelevant, non-privileged, non-protected fact.

Defendants Have Not Shown that the Information It Seeks in the PMQ Deposition is Crucial to the Preparation of Its Case.

Under the second Carehouse factor, Defendants have the burden of showing that the information it seeks in the PMQ deposition is crucial to the preparation of its case. (Carehouse, supra, 143 Cal. App. 4th at p. 1563.) Defendants have not done this--and it is clear that some of the topics listed in the PMQ Deposition Notice are not crucial to the preparation of Defendant's case. For example, Topic 2 is "Facts and information concerning YOUR efforts, if any, to stop, prevent or otherwise alter DEFENDANTS' purportedly wrongful conduct, and/or that of other online CPR training providers, prior to filing YOUR COMPLAINT as well as any prior enforcement actions against online CPR training providers."

Prefiling notice is not a requirement of any of the pending causes of action, and the topic therefore is not crucial to the preparation of Defendants' case. Topic 11 is "Facts and information concerning the application of Cal/OSHA for California consumers of DEFENDANTS' products." No Cal/OSHA violations are alleged, and the topic therefore is also not crucial to the preparation of Defendants' case.

C. Some of the Deposition Topics Seek Privileged Information.

Under the third Carehouse factor, the People must establish "the preliminary facts to support any claim of privilege." (Credit One Bank N.A., supra, 112 Cal.App.5th at p. 817.) Topics 1-10 and 12-14 clearly call for information protected as attorney work product, the deliberative process privilege, and/or the official information privilege. Because these privileges often overlap, they will be addressed together.

The work product doctrine is defined in section 2018.030, which states: "a writing that reflects an attorney's impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal research or theories is not discoverable under any circumstances." Section 2018.030 also applies to the unwritten opinions of attorneys. (Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. v Super. Ct. (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1263, 1281.) Further, communications among the People's attorneys and investigators are covered by the work product doctrine because the People's investigators work at the direction of the People's attorneys.

The deliberative process privilege rests on the "policy of protecting the decision making processes of government agencies." (Board of Registered Nursing v. Super. Ct. (2001) 59 Cal.App.5th 1011, 1040.) When evaluating whether the deliberative process privilege applies, the question is "whether disclosure of materials would expose an agency's decision-making process in such a way as to discourage candid discussing within the agency and thereby undermine the agency's ability to perform its functions." (Ibid.)

Finally, the official information privilege, reflected in Evidence Code section 1040, protects "official information," meaning "information acquired in confidence by a public employee in the course of his or her duty and not open, or officially disclosed, to the public." A public entity, such as the District Attorney's Office, can refuse to disclose such information if the interest in "preserving the confidentiality of the information . . . outweighs the necessity for disclosure in the interest of justice." (Evid. Code, Sec. 1040, subd. (b)(2).)

Defendants' Deposition Notice also seeks information covered by expert discovery rules. Code of Civil Procedure sections 2034.210 through 2034.310 govern the disclosure of information related to expert reports, writings, testing, and identities, and provide strict timelines for disclosure.

The following explains why the information Defendants seek in Topics 1-10 and 12-14 is protected by an above-listed privilege and/or expert discovery rules:

Topic 1: "Facts and information concerning YOUR determination that OSHA required CPR training programs to include a hands-on / in-person component to comply with its guidance, including when such determination was made, who made the determination, the qualifications of said person(s) making the determination and the basis for such determination as well as when any hands-on / in-person training component is required." This topic calls for information protected by the work product privilege to the extent that it requests facts and information related to attorney impressions, conclusions, opinions, and legal theories.

It also calls for information protected by the deliberative process privilege because it seeks facts relating to the decision making processes of government agencies. Defendants want to know why the prosecuting attorneys chose to interpret the law in a particular way; this is unquestionably protected attorney work product.

Topic 2: "Facts and information concerning YOUR efforts, if any, to stop, prevent or otherwise alter DEFENDANTS' purportedly wrongful conduct, and/or that of other online CPR training providers, prior to filing YOUR COMPLAINT as well as any prior enforcement actions against online CPR training providers." This topic calls for information protected by the work product privilege to the extent that it requests facts and information related to attorney impressions, conclusions, opinions, and legal theories. It also calls for information protected by the deliberative process privilege because it seeks facts relating to the decision making processes of government agencies with regards to why and when they decided to act.

Topic 3: "Facts and information concerning YOUR efforts, if any, to provide fair notice to DEFENDANTS, and/or other online CPR training providers, of the People's new interpretation of OSHA requirements and enforcement actions prior to filing YOUR COMPLAINT." This topic calls for information protected by the work product privilege to the extent that it requests facts and information related to attorney impressions, conclusions, opinions, and legal theories. It also calls for information protected by the deliberative process privilege because it seeks facts relating to the decision making processes of government agencies with regards to why and when they decided to act.

Topic 4: "Facts and information concerning YOUR determination that AHA guidelines required CPR training programs to include a hands-on component to comply with its guidance, including when such determination was made, who made the determination and the qualifications of said person(s) making the determination and the basis for such determination as well as how, if at all, DEFENDANTS' programs fail to comply with AHA guidelines." This topic calls for information protected by the work product privilege as it requests facts and information related to attorney impressions, conclusions, opinions, and legal theories.

It also calls for information protected by the deliberative process privilege because it seeks facts relating to the decision making processes of government agencies. This topic also calls for information protected by expert discovery rules. Defendants want to know why the prosecuting attorneys chose to interpret the law in a particular way; this is unquestionably protected attorney work product.

Topic 5: "Facts and information concerning any notice that YOU provided to DEFENDANTS, other online CPR training providers or the general public, regarding YOUR determination that, in order to claim compliance with AHA guidelines, a CPR training provider must include a hands-on / in-person component or opportunity for them to conform to this interpretation." This topic calls for information protected by the work product privilege to the extent that it requests facts and information related to attorney impressions, conclusions, opinions, and legal theories. It also calls for information protected by the deliberative process privilege because it seeks facts relating to the decision making processes of government agencies with regards to why and when they decided to act.

Topic 6: "Facts and information concerning any consumer complaints against DEFENDANTS, including any online complaints as well as complaints to any District Attorney Offices as well as any interviews of consumers about DEFENDANTS or online CPR training providers." This topic calls for information protected by the official information privilege. In addition, witness interviews are generally protected as attorney work product. (Coito v. Super. Ct. (2012) 54 Cal.4th 480, 496.)

Topic 7: "Facts and information concerning the allegedly problematic language on DEFENDANTS' website(s), the duration of such language, changes to the language and the duration of those changes." This topic calls for information protected by the work product privilege to the extent that it requests facts and information related to attorney impressions, conclusions, opinions, and legal theories.

Topic 8: "Facts and information concerning OSHA compliance requirements, including OSHA guidelines, regulations, best practices, letters of interpretation as well as any hands-on/in-person training requirements and employer responsibilities for compliance with OSHA." This topic calls for information protected by the work product privilege as it requests facts and information related to attorney impressions, conclusions, opinions, and legal theories. It also calls for information protected by the deliberative process privilege because it seeks facts relating to the decision making processes of government agencies. This topic also calls for information protected by expert discovery rules.

Topic 9: "Facts and information concerning AHA CPR training standards or guidelines, AHA online training program(s), any hands-on / in-person training requirements thereof, and any effort by the People to provide fair notice of their interpretation of the requirements to DEFENDANTS or other online CPR training providers." This topic calls for information protected by the work product privilege as it requests facts and information related to attorney impressions, conclusions, opinions, and legal theories. It also calls for information protected by the deliberative process privilege because it seeks facts relating to the decision making processes of government agencies. This topic also calls for information protected by expert discovery rules.

Topic 10: "Facts and information concerning the scope of the consumers alleged misled by NCPRF's advertising, including the number of such consumers, the names and contact information of such consumers, how specifically such consumers were misled as well as the actual harm to any such consumers." This topic calls for information protected by the work product privilege as it requests facts and information related to attorney impressions, conclusions, opinions, and legal theories.

Topic 11: "Facts and information concerning the application of Cal/OSHA for California consumers of DEFENDANTS' products." This topic calls for information protected by the work product privilege as it requests facts and information related to attorney impressions, conclusions, opinions, and legal theories.

Topic 12: "Facts and information concerning requirements to claim that a company is accredited and why NCPRF purportedly should not have claimed such." This topic calls for information protected by the work product privilege as it requests facts and information related to attorney impressions, conclusions, opinions, and legal theories.

Topic 14: "Facts and information concerning all discussions with DEFENDANTS' prior counsel regarding changes that YOU asked them to make to NCPRF's website and DEFENDANTS' compliance therewith and changes to their websites thereafter." This topic calls for information protected by the work product privilege as it requests facts and information related to attorney impressions, conclusions, opinions, and legal theories. It also calls for information protected by the deliberative process privilege because it seeks facts relating to the decision making processes of government agencies.

For the reasons set forth above, the People respectfully request that the Court grant this Motion for a Protective Order. The People request that this Court not allow the deposition to proceed at all, but if it does proceed, the People request that it be through written, instead of oral, examination. The Court should also order Defendant to pay sanctions of $4,500, as many of the topic included in its Deposition Notice are clearly improper in light of the Credit One Bank decision.

Supported by the Declaration of Evan H. Goldsmith: As of May 14, 2026, I spent five hours preparing this motion. I expect to spend another five hours on a reply and preparing for oral argument. This does not include any time spent preparing for or meeting and conferring with Defendants. I am requesting $450 in hourly fees for this time, for a total of $4,500 ($450 x 10). Supported by Exhibit #1.

Defendant's Opposition Filed 6/9/26; 19 pages; summarized: On May 7, 2026, Defendants, National CPR Foundation ("NCPRF") and Michael Paladino (collectively, "Defendants") served on the People of the State of California (the "State" or "Plaintiff") a Notice of Deposition ("Deposition Notice"), seeking to depose the Person Most Qualified ("PMQ") for the State. The Deposition Notice listed fourteen topics for examination, all of which were directly related to Plaintiff's claims and Defendants' defenses thereto.

Here, the deposition of the State's PMQ is necessary because, inter alia, the State has failed to provide meaningful answers to Defendants' numerous discovery requests. In light of the State's failure to provide substantive discovery responses to Defendants' form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and requests for production, the Defendants do not have the information necessary to defend the action brought by the State. As such, Defendants' deposition of the State's PMQ is necessary. Accordingly, Defendants request the Court deny the State's motion for protective order and order the deposition of the PMQ for the reasons discussed herein.

"The highest Individual PAGA Payment to an Aggrieved Employee is approximately $127.34, the average Individual PAGA Payment is approximately $63.78, and the lowest Individual PAGA Payment is approximately $2.05." (Botero Decl., P. 18.)

"Apex's comprehensive fees and costs for administering this Settlement, covering both incurred and anticipated expenses, amount to $6,500.00." (Botero Decl., P. 20.)

Based on the declaration of Botero, as well as the Class Notice, the Court finds that Apex completed the distribution of the Class Notice in a manner that comports with California Rules of Court, rule 3.766, and that the Class Notice contained all relevant information regarding the settlement terms and Class Members' rights with respect to the proposed settlement.

By way of this motion for final approval, Plaintiffs request the following be approved: Defendants shall pay a total gross settlement amount of $499,000.00 to resolve the action; Individual Settlement Payments are to be paid to the Settlement Class Members as provided for in the settlement agreement and the Botero declaration; Payments of PAGA Civil Penalties in the amount of $25,000.00, with 75 percent to be paid to the LWDA and 25 percent to be distributed to the PAGA Members; Class representative enhancement payments of $15,000.00 to Plaintiff Leopoldo Martinez-Bravo and $10,000.00 to Plaintiff Roberto Ramon Joya Estrada; Administration fees and expenses of $6,500.00 to be paid to Apex; Attorney fees of 35 percent of the gross settlement amount ($174,650.00); and Litigation costs of $17,856.14.

The Court finds: (1) the notice procedure afforded adequate protections to Class Members; (2) the members of the Class are ascertainable and so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable; (3) there are questions of law and fact common to the Class, as well as a well-defined community of interest among members of the Class with respect to the subject matter of this action; (4) the claims of the class representatives are typical of the claims of the other Class Members; (5) the class representatives have fairly and adequately protected the interests of the Class; and (6) counsel of record for the class representatives are qualified to serve as class counsel.

The Court finds that the terms of the settlement are fair, reasonable, and adequate, and will approve final settlement upon the agreed upon terms.

However: The proposed order has a typographical error at paragraph 14 b that must be corrected. It should read "$17,856.14," but reads "$17,856314." Plaintiffs will be ordered to correct the order and resubmit it to the Court for signature.

Tentative Ruling: The People of The State of California v. National CPR Foundation, LLC, et al Tentative Ruling: The People of The State of California v. National CPR Foundation, LLC, et al Case Number

Case Type Civil Law & Motion Hearing Date / Time Wed, 06/17/2026 - 10:00 Nature of Proceedings Motion for Summary Adjudication Tentative Ruling For Plaintiff The People of The State of California: Christopher B. Dalbey, Santa Barbara County District