MOTION – ADMISSIONS – DISCOVER FACILITATOR PROGRAM; MOTION – COMPEL – DISCOVERY FACILITATOR PROGRAM
2) MOTION – COMPEL – DISCOVERY FACILITATOR PROGRAM
Plaintiff Susan Davia has filed two motions to compel discovery. The motion to compel admissions, second set of form interrogatories and second set of document requests was filed on October 2, 2025. The matter was referred to Kevin Coleman as the Discovery Facilitator. Plaintiff advised the court in his declaration of non-resolution that on February 5, 2026, defense counsel conferred with Discovery Facilitator
Coleman informed Plaintiff of their intent to issue supplemental discovery responses as well as to produce documents to, at least in part, satisfy some of the issues raised by Davia’s Motions to Compel. Defendant proposed a further continuation of the Motion to Compel hearing date to allow defendants more time to serve the supplemental responses and responsive documents. On February 6, 2026, in reliance upon the purported good faith desire of each defendant to finally comply with their discovery obligations, plaintiff executed a Stipulation to again continue the hearing date for both motions to compel.
Unfortunately, the court did not receive a report from the discovery facilitator.
Defendant again assured Plaintiff that discovery responses would be forthcoming on March 11, and March 31. To support its contention that documents were privileged, Defendant PHS served a privilege log on March 18, without documents. The defendant claims that a privilege log was responsive. Defendant also agreed to produce additional documents “prior to the May 8 hearing.” On April 10, a sample of documents were produced by Defendant ASP. Defendant PSH informs the court in its reply brief filed on May 1 at ¶ 13 that it gave Plaintiff the option to continue this hearing, to provide defendant more time to “complete the review” of discovery requests, presumably. Given that 8 months have passed since the filing of the motion to compel, it seems reasonable to expect that the defendant would have had more than sufficient time to adequately respond to discovery.
CV2201606
California discovery rules are to be liberally construed in favor of disclosure. Discovery statutes must be interpreted broadly to facilitate the exchange of information between parties. "[A]bsent a showing that substantial interests will be impaired by allowing discovery, liberal policies of discovery rules will generally counsel against overturning a trial court's decision granting discovery and militate in favor of overturning a decision to deny discovery" (Flagship Theatres of Palm Desert, LLC v.
Century Theatres, Inc., 198 Cal.App.4th 1366 (2011),
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?”
Superior Court, 14 Cal.App.4th 733 (1993)).
The court is deeply concerned with the inadequacy of Defendants’ responses and failure to fully participate in the litigation.
Defendants have promised to respond to discovery by the hearing date on May 8, 2026. The court awaits an update from the Plaintiff.
Agreements reached in February regarding production of discovery were ignored, with later promises to respond prior to the hearing date. This conduct leads the court to believe that the statutory sanctions requested by Plaintiff against both Defendants are warranted.
In court appearances are required, with court available to assist the parties to resolve each of the remaining issues.
Parties must comply with Marin County Superior Court Local Rules, Rule 2.10(A), (B), which provides that if a party wants to present oral argument, the party must contact the Court at (415) 444-7046 and all opposing parties by 4:00 p.m. the court day preceding the scheduled hearing. Notice may be by telephone or in person to all other parties that argument is being requested (i.e., it is not necessary to speak with counsel or parties directly.) Unless the Court and all parties have been notified of a request to present oral argument, no oral argument will be permitted except by order of the Court. In the event no party requests oral argument in accordance with Rule 2.10(B), the tentative ruling shall become the order of the court.
IT IS ORDERED that evidentiary hearings shall be in-person in Department L. For routine appearances, the parties may access Department L for video conference via a link on the court website. Kindly turn your camera on when your case is called and make sure the party or lawyer making the appearance is properly identified on the screen.
FURTHER ORDERED that the parties are responsible for ensuring that they have a good connection and that they are available for the hearing. If the connection is inadequate, the Court may proceed with the hearing in the party’s absence.