KASKIRIS vs THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, et al.

22CV023136: KASKIRIS vs THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, et al. 08/20/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses filed by Vanessa Kaskiris (Plaintiff) CRS# 476941373474 in Department 518

Tentative Ruling - 08/17/2026 Mark Fickes

The Motion to Compel PLAINTIFF VANESSA KASKIRIS NOTICE OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER VERIFIED RESPONSES TO, AND COMPLIANCE WITH, REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET FOUR, TO DEFENDANT THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA filed by Vanessa Kaskiris on 07/27/2026 is Granted in Part.

BACKGROUND

Kaskiris served Request for Production of Documents, Set Four, on May 29, 2026. (Declaration of Jivaka Candappa in Support of Motion to Compel Further Verified Responses to RFP Set Four (OERCS Review) ("Candappa Dec.") ¶ 12, Ex. 4.) Request No. 1 seeks the investigative report prepared by Linda Daube following the administrative fact-finding review of the Office of Ethics, Risk and Compliance Services described in her February 8, 2023 Statement of Work. Request No. 2 seeks the entire investigative file for that review, including all electronically stored information. Request No. 3 seeks all documents and communications, including all electronically stored information, relating to that review. (Candappa Dec. ¶ 13, Ex. 4.)

The Regents served responses on June 30, 2026. (Candappa Dec. ¶ 16; Romero Dec. ¶ 3.) As to each request, The Regents objected that the request is overbroad, burdensome, and vague and ambiguous, seeks irrelevant matter, invades third-party privacy rights, and calls for material protected by the attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine. (Candappa Dec., Ex. 5.) Subject to those objections, The Regents stated that it would conduct a reasonable and diligent search and produce non-privileged responsive documents on a rolling basis under the parties' protective order, with redactions and a privilege log where appropriate. (Candappa Dec. ¶ 16, Ex. 5.)

The responses did not state whether The Regents would comply with each request in whole or in part, whether any responsive documents were being withheld on the basis of the objections, or a date by which production would be complete. (Candappa Dec. ¶¶ 16, 17.) Counsel met and conferred on July 9, 2026 and did not resolve the dispute. (Candappa Dec. ¶ 18.)

After the motion was filed, on August 7, 2026, The Regents produced documents Bates numbered UCR016554 through UCR016594 in redacted form. (Romero Dec. ¶¶ 4, 6, Ex. A.) The Regents redacted third-party information to protect the privacy of non-party individuals. (Romero Dec. ¶¶ 5, 6.) The Regents served a supplemental privilege log the same day. (Romero Dec. ¶ 7, Ex. B.) The log consists of a single entry covering the entire Bates range, describes the material as the OERCS investigative report and investigative file and electronically stored information, and identifies the basis for withholding only as "Third Party Privacy." (Romero Dec., Ex.

B.) The log does not itemize the documents within the range and does not assert the attorney-client privilege or the work product doctrine as to the produced materials. (Romero 22CV023136: KASKIRIS vs THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, et al. 08/20/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses filed by Vanessa Kaskiris (Plaintiff) CRS# 476941373474 in Department 518 Dec., Ex. B.)

A Stipulated Protective Order dated December 11, 2025 is in place and provides for the production of confidential and private materials. (Candappa Dec. ¶ 19, Ex. 6.)

LEGAL STANDARD

On receipt of a response to a demand for production, the demanding party may move to compel a further response if a statement of compliance is incomplete, a representation of inability to comply is inadequate, or an objection is without merit or too general. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (a).) A statement of compliance must state that production will be allowed in whole or in part and that all responsive documents in the party's possession, custody, or control to which no objection is made will be included. (Code Civ.

Proc., § 2031.220.) A representation of inability to comply must affirm that a diligent search and reasonable inquiry were made and specify the reason production cannot be made. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.230.) A verified, codecompliant response is the appropriate end point of a motion to compel a further response. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310.) Once such a response is served, the propounding party is entitled to rely on it. (Higginson v. Kia Motors America, Inc. (2026) 118 Cal.App.5th 316, 348.)

The pendency of the motion is not defeated by a party's service of a further response or production while the motion is pending. The Court retains authority to evaluate the adequacy of the response as supplemented. (County of San Benito v. Superior Court (2023) 96 Cal.App.5th 243, 255-256.)

A party objecting to a demand must identify with particularity each item to which an objection is made, state the specific ground, and, if the objection rests on privilege or work product, provide sufficient factual information for other parties to evaluate the claim, including a privilege log. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.240, subds. (b), (c).) A privilege log must identify each withheld document with particularity and should state the identity and capacity of those who authored, sent, or received it, its date, a description of its subject matter sufficient to evaluate the claim, and the precise privilege or protection asserted. (Catalina Island Yacht Club v.

Superior Court (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 1116, 1130.) If a log is deficient, the Court's remedy is to order a further or supplemental log. The Court may not order the attorney-client privilege or work product protection waived as a sanction for a deficient log once the objection was timely asserted. (Id. at pp. 1126-1127; Best Products, Inc. v. Superior Court (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 1181, 1189-1190.)

If a demand seeks materials protected by the constitutional right to privacy (Cal. Const., art. I, § 1), including the privacy of non-parties, the Court applies the threshold set out in Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1, 35-37, which requires a legally protected privacy interest, an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy, and a serious threatened intrusion. The Court then balances the privacy interest against the need for disclosure, taking account of feasible alternatives and protective measures. (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 552.) A compelling interest is not required unless the intrusion is an obvious invasion of an interest fundamental to personal autonomy, and a protective order is a relevant safeguard and

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

22CV023136: KASKIRIS vs THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, et al. 08/20/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses filed by Vanessa Kaskiris (Plaintiff) CRS# 476941373474 in Department 518 factor in the balance. (Id. at pp. 556-557.) The Court may not require disclosure of information claimed to be privileged in order to rule on the claim of privilege. (Evid. Code, § 915, subd. (a); Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Superior Court (2009) 47 Cal.4th 725, 732, 739.)

DISCUSSION

The June 30, 2026 responses are not code-compliant. A promise to produce responsive documents on a rolling basis, without stating whether The Regents will comply with each request in whole or in part, whether any responsive documents are being withheld on the basis of the objections, or a date certain for completion, does not satisfy the response requirements of the Civil Discovery Act. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2031.220, 2031.230; Candappa Dec. ¶¶ 16, 17.) The August 7, 2026 production and supplemental log did not moot the motion, because the Court retains authority to determine the adequacy of the response as supplemented. (San Benito, supra, 96 Cal.App.5th at pp. 255-256; Romero Dec. ¶¶ 4, 7.) Further verified responses are required.

The supplemental privilege log is inadequate. A single entry covering the 41-page range from UCR016554 through UCR016594, identifying the basis for withholding only as "Third Party Privacy," does not identify the withheld or redacted materials with the particularity that the statute requires, and it does not permit Kaskiris or the Court to evaluate any withholding on a document-by-document basis. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.240, subds. (b), (c); Catalina Island Yacht Club, supra, 242 Cal.App.4th at p. 1130; Romero Dec., Ex. B.) A further, itemized log is required. (Catalina Island Yacht Club, supra, 242 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1126-1127.)

The Court does not, at this stage, decide whether any particular withheld or redacted content must be produced. That question cannot be resolved on the present record, which does not identify the withheld materials with particularity, and the Court will not require The Regents to disclose assertedly privileged material to Kaskiris in order to rule on a claim of privilege. (Evid. Code, § 915, subd. (a); Costco, supra, 47 Cal.4th at pp. 732, 739.) The Court therefore defers any order compelling disclosure of specific content until The Regents serves the further responses and itemized log ordered below.

If disputes remain, the Court will resolve them on a documentby-document basis and, where necessary, by in camera review of the specifically disputed items, applying the privacy framework of Hill and Williams to any assertion of non-party privacy. (Williams, supra, 3 Cal.5th at pp. 552, 556-557.)

The Stipulated Protective Order dated December 11, 2025 materially reduces the need for redaction on third-party privacy grounds. (Candappa Dec. ¶ 19, Ex. 6.) Because a protective order now governs the handling of confidential material in this action, residual third-party privacy concerns are, in the first instance, adequately addressed by producing responsive materials subject to that order rather than by wholesale redaction. (Williams, supra, 3 Cal.5th at pp. 556-557.) The Regents may propose narrowly tailored redactions only where it contends the protective order is insufficient to protect a specific, identified privacy interest, and any such dispute will be evaluated under the framework set out above.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

22CV023136: KASKIRIS vs THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, et al. 08/20/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses filed by Vanessa Kaskiris (Plaintiff) CRS# 476941373474 in Department 518

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

The motion is GRANTED IN PART as follows.

1. Within 20 days of the date of this order, The Regents shall serve further verified responses to Requests Nos. 1 through 3 that comply with Code of Civil Procedure sections 2031.210 through 2031.240. As to each request, the response shall satisfy three requirements. (a) It shall state whether The Regents will comply in whole or in part. (b) It shall confirm that all responsive documents, including electronically stored information, in The Regents' possession, custody, or control and to which no objection is made have been or will be produced by a date certain. (c) As to any category or item The Regents cannot produce, it shall provide a statement of inability to comply that satisfies section 2031.230.

2. Within 20 days of the date of this order, The Regents shall serve a further privilege and redaction log that identifies, on a document-by-document basis, each document or portion of a document withheld or redacted in response to Requests Nos. 1 through 3. For each entry, the log shall state the identity and capacity of the author and each recipient, the date, a description of the subject matter sufficient to evaluate the claim, and the specific basis asserted for the withholding or redaction, including the particular privilege or protection or the specific third-party privacy interest relied upon.

3. The Court defers any ruling compelling the disclosure of specific withheld or redacted content until The Regents has served the further responses and log required by paragraphs 1 and 2. Consistent with Evidence Code section 915 and Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Superior Court (2009) 47 Cal.4th 725, 732, the Court will not require The Regents to disclose assertedly privileged material to Kaskiris in order to rule on any claim of privilege. Any remaining disputes shall be resolved on a document-by-document basis and, where necessary, by in camera review of the specifically disputed items.

4. Responsive materials shall be produced subject to the Stipulated Protective Order dated December 11, 2025. Because that order governs the handling of confidential material, third-party privacy concerns shall be addressed in the first instance by production under the protective order rather than by wholesale redaction. The Regents may withhold or redact on third-party privacy grounds only where it identifies a specific privacy interest that the protective order does not adequately protect, and shall log any such withholding or redaction as provided in paragraph 2.

5. To the extent the motion seeks an immediate order compelling production of unredacted documents, or a determination that the attorney-client privilege or work product protection has been waived, that relief is deferred pending compliance with paragraphs 1 through 4, without prejudice to renewal after the further responses and log are served.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

22CV023136: KASKIRIS vs THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, et al. 08/20/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses filed by Vanessa Kaskiris (Plaintiff) CRS# 476941373474 in Department 518 6. Counsel shall meet and confer regarding any remaining disputes within 10 days after the further responses and log are served. If disputes remain, the parties shall submit them to the Court in accordance with its procedures, identifying the specific entries in dispute, so that the Court may resolve them and conduct in camera review where necessary.

PLEASE NOTE: Pursuant to California Rule of Court 3.1308, subdivision (a)(1), this tentative ruling will become the order of the Court unless it is contested before 4:00 PM on the court day preceding the noticed hearing.

To contest a tentative ruling, a party should do the following:

First, the party must notify Department 518, by email at Dept518@alameda.courts.ca.gov and copy all counsel of record and self-represented parties. The contesting party must state in the subject line of the email the case name, case number and motion.

Second, the party shall log into the eCourt Public Portal, search for this case (e.g., by case number), select the case name, select the "Tentative Rulings" tab, click the "Click to Contest this Ruling" button, enter the party's name and a brief statement of the party's reason for contesting the tentative, and click "Proceed."

Please note the Court does not permit remote appearances for motions for summary judgment that are contested. If you contest a Motion for Summary Judgment, you must appear in person.

For all other motions (unless otherwise noted in the tentative ruling), Parties may appear via videoconference, using the Zoom.com website or application. TO CONNECT TO ZOOM: Department 518 is inviting you to a scheduled ZoomGov meeting.

Topic: Department 518's Personal Meeting Room

Join ZoomGov Meeting https://alameda-courts-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16054307984

Meeting ID: 160 5430 7984

One tap mobile +16692545252,,16054307984# US (San Jose) +14154494000,,16054307984# US (US Spanish Line)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

22CV023136: KASKIRIS vs THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, et al. 08/20/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses filed by Vanessa Kaskiris (Plaintiff) CRS# 476941373474 in Department 518 ---

Dial by your location • +1 669 254 5252 US (San Jose)