FRITCHMAN VS. MONDELEZ INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS LLC, ET AL.

CASE NUMBER: 24CV-0204112 Tentative Ruling on Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production: Plaintiff Sabrina Fritchman moves to compel Defendant Mondelez Global, LLC to provide further responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of Documents, Set One and for monetary sanctions. Defendant opposes the motion.

Meet and Confer. Pursuant to Ca. Code of Civ. Pro. section 2031.310(b) a motion to compel further responses must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration. The Declaration of attorney Saideh Ghasemi Moghadam establishes compliance with this requirement.

Merits. The scope of discovery is broad. Any matter that is admissible evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence is relevant and subject to discovery. CCP § 2017.010. Any doubts as to the relevance should generally be resolved in favor of permitting discovery. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co. v. Sup. Ct. (1982) 31 Cal.3d 785, 790. A propounding party may move for an order compelling further responses to requests for production if: 1) the response to a request for production is incomplete; 2) a representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive; or 3) an objection to the request is without merit or too general.

CCP § 2031.310(a). A motion to compel further responses for production must show “good cause” for the request. CCP § 2031.310(b)(1). “Good cause” can be established by showing the request was made in good faith and the documents sought are relevant to the action. Associated Brewers Distributing Co. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1967) 65 Cal.2d 583, 588. Once good cause is established, the burden shifts to the opposing party to justify their objection. Kirkland v. Superior Court (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 92, 98.

Here, Plaintiff seeks to compel further responses to 25 Requests for Production. Plaintiff sets forth the disputed Requests as falling into two categories:

1. RFPs 1, 2, 7, 15, 17, 29, 34, 46-50. Plaintiff argues that Defendant’s responses contain boilerplate objections followed by a representation that it “will produce all nonprivileged, responsive documents.” Defendant has not confirmed whether its production is complete, whether additional documents exist, whether responsive documents are being withheld subject to objections, or whether further production will be made. Plaintiff argues this makes the original and supplemental productions noncompliant with CCP §§ 2031.220- 2031.240.

The Court agrees, subject to the narrowing instruction noted below, and further production is ordered. Defendant must serve further verified responses, produce all responsive nonprivileged documents and/or confirm they have all been produced. To the extent responsive documents are withheld based on privilege or work product, Defendant must produce a privilege log.

2. RFPs 6, 9, 12, 16, 20, 36, 38, 41, 42, 44, 51-53. Plaintiff argues these consist solely of boilerplate objections or otherwise fail to provide substantive responses as required by CCP 2031.220. Defendant does not state whether responsive documents exist, whether a search was undertaken, whether it is able to comply and whether responsive documents are being withheld. Further production is ordered, subject to the narrowing instruction noted below.

Defendant must serve further verified responses, produce all responsive nonprivileged documents and/or confirm they have all been produced. To the extent responsive documents are withheld based on privilege or work product, Defendant must produce a privilege log.

Narrowing Instruction: Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s RFPs 9, 42, 44, 47-51 are overbroad and unduly burdensome to the extent they seek documents relating to MDLZ’s entire product line, without limitation to the Sour Patch Kids product at issue. This Court’s order for further production is limited to documents related to the Sour Patch Kids product at issue, as Plaintiff has not demonstrated good cause for production of documents related to other products.

Sanctions: Monetary sanctions are mandatory against anyone who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further response to a demand unless the Court finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. CCP § 2031.310(h). Plaintiff seeks $2,100.00, representing six hours of attorney time at $350 per hour. The Court finds no circumstances that would make the imposition of sanctions unjust. The time spent and hourly rate are reasonable and will be awarded.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents is GRANTED, subject to the limitations detailed above. Defendant shall serve further verified, code-compliant responses, without objection except as to specifically identified privileged material, as detailed above within 20 days of this order. Sanctions of $2,100.00 are imposed in favor of Plaintiff Fritchman against Mondelez Global, LLC. A proposed order was lodged and will be modified.

Tentative Ruling on Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories: Plaintiff Sabrina Fritchman moves to compel Defendant Mondelez Global, LLC to provide further responses to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories, Set One and for monetary sanctions. Defendant opposes the motion.

Plaintiff alleges she was injured biting into a hard object in a package of Sour Patch Kids candy on February 3, 2022. On December 26, 2025, Plaintiff served 58 Special Interrogatories on Defendant Mondelez Global, LLC. Defendant served unverified responses on March 27, 2026. Following meet-and-confer efforts, Defendant served verified supplemental responses to Special Interrogatories Nos. 14, 15, 16, 19, 21-28, 46-50, and 54 on May 26, 2026. The remainder are still unverified. Plaintiff moves to compel further responses to 55 of the 58 interrogatories and requests $3,500 in monetary sanctions.

Meet and Confer. Pursuant to Ca. Code of Civ. Pro. section 2031.310(b) a motion to compel further responses must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration. The Declaration of attorney Saideh Ghasemi Moghadam establishes compliance with this requirement.

Merits. The scope of discovery is broad. Any matter that is admissible evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence is relevant and subject to discovery. CCP § 2017.010. Any doubts as to the relevance should generally be resolved in favor of permitting discovery. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co. v. Sup. Ct. (1982) 31 Cal.3d 785, 790. A party propounding interrogatories may move for further responses if the responses are evasive/incomplete or contain unmeritorious objections. CCP § 2030.300(a)(1) & (3). There is 3

no good cause requirement for compelling further interrogatory responses.

Verifications. CCP § 2030.250(a) requires that interrogatory responses be signed under oath unless the response contains only objections. Unverified substantive responses do not constitute substantial compliance and are treated as no responses at all. Appleton v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 635-636. Defendant's original March 27, 2026 responses were unverified. Defendant verified only the May 26, 2026 supplemental responses to Nos. 14, 15, 16, 19, 21-28, 46-50, and 54. To the extent Defendant elected to stand on substantive factual answers in its original responses to the remaining interrogatories, those answers remain unverified. Further verified responses are ordered.

Response by Reference to Writing. CCP § 2030.230 permits a party to answer by reference to a writing only where the burden of deriving the answer is substantially the same for both parties, and it requires the responding party to specify the writing with sufficient particularity to permit the answer to be located. Defendant's reliance on a five-page Corporate Quality Policy bearing a September 2023 revision date, more than a year after the February 2022 incident, does not answer interrogatories that ask what policies and procedures were in effect at the time of the incident. As to Nos. 21-28, Defendant is ordered to identify the policies and procedures that were in effect on the date of the incident, or to state that no such superseded version exists and explain the basis for that statement following a reasonable and diligent inquiry.

Privilege and Work Product Objections. Attorney-client privilege and work-product protection cover communications and mental impressions, not the underlying facts. To the extent Special Interrogatories Nos. 5-13, 35-43, and 51 seek facts, and not the content of privileged communications or counsel's mental impressions, the privilege and work-product objections are overruled.

Duplication. Defendant argues that certain interrogatories are duplicative (e.g., Nos. 3-4, 6-7, 22, 24, 26). However, for example, SROG 3 seeks the identity of persons who “distributed” the product while SROG 4 seeks the identity of persons who “sold” the product. Distribution and sale are distinct and may involve different personnel and records. The Court does not find these types of similarities duplicative. Further responses are ordered.

Undue Burden. As to interrogatories seeking information across Defendant’s entire global operations without temporal or product limitation (Nos. 33-34, 52-53) and Defendant’s complete contractual relationship with Raley's (No. 58), the Court agrees these interrogatories, as written, are overbroad. Plaintiff has represented, in her meet-and-confer correspondence and Separate Statement, that she is willing to accept responses limited to the subject product, substantially similar confectionery products, and substantially similar hard-object incidents. The Court will compel further responses to these interrogatories subject to the limitation that they concern only the subject product (and not substantially similar products and substantially similar hard-object incidents) rather than deny them outright.

Sanctions. Monetary sanctions are mandatory against anyone who makes or opposes a motion to compel further response to Form or Special Interrogatories unless the Court finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. CCP § 2030.300(d). Plaintiff seeks $3,500.00, representing ten hours of attorney time at $350 per hour. The Court finds no circumstances that would make the imposition of sanctions unjust. The time spent and hourly rate are reasonable and will be awarded. 4

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents is GRANTED, subject to the limitations detailed above. Defendant shall serve further verified, code-compliant responses, without objection except as to specifically identified privileged material, to Special Interrogatories, Set One as detailed above within 20 days of this order. Sanctions of $3,500 are imposed in favor of Plaintiff Fritchman against Mondelez Global, LLC. A proposed order was lodged and will be modified.

HILL, ET AL. VS. NELSON, ET AL.