Renderos VS Clearview AI, Inc.

RG21096898: Renderos VS Clearview AI, Inc. 08/26/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses filed by Malkia Devich Cyril (Plaintiff) + CRS# 941817136243 in Department 18

Tentative Ruling - 08/25/2026 Patrick McKinney

The Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses filed by Mijente Support Committee, Norcal Resist Fund, Malkia Devich Cyril, Valeria Thais Suarez Rojas, Reyna Maldonado, Lisa Knox on 06/22/2026 is Granted in Part.

The motion is GRANTED IN PART.

As an initial matter, Plaintiffs’ motion is procedurally problematic. The motion seeks further responses to Special Interrogatories, Requests for Admission, and Request for Production of Documents. Typically, this type omnibus motion is procedurally improper. (See Weil, et al., Cal. Prac. Guide: Civ. Proc. Before Trial (Rutter Group 2026), ¶ 8:1140.1.) However, Plaintiffs submitted individual separate statements for each set of discovery at issue, so the court considers this to be substantial compliance with the general rule that motions to compel be filed for each set of disputed discovery responses.

LEGAL STANDARD

Requests for Admission Code of Civil Procedure Section 2033.220 sets forth the following regarding Requests for Admission: (a) Each answer in a response to requests for admission shall be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits. (b) Each answer shall: (1) Admit so much of the matter involved in the request as is true, either as expressed in the request itself or as reasonably and clearly qualified by the responding party. (2) Deny so much of the matter involved in the request as is untrue. (3) Specify so much of the matter involved in the request as to the truth of which the responding party lacks sufficient information or knowledge. (c) If a responding party gives lack of information or knowledge as a reason for a failure to admit all or part of a request for admission, that party shall state in the answer that a reasonable inquiry concerning the matter in the particular request has been made, and that the information known or readily obtainable is insufficient to enable that party to admit the matter.

Special Interrogatories Where the party propounding written discovery deems the responses unsatisfactory, the party may move to compel further responses. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300).

“Unless limited by order of the court any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved if the matter either is itself admissible RG21096898: Renderos VS Clearview AI, Inc. 08/26/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses filed by Malkia Devich Cyril (Plaintiff) + CRS# 941817136243 in Department 18 in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2017.010.)

The responding party bears the burden of justifying any objection or failure to fully respond to an interrogatory. (Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255.) It is the responding party’s obligation to provide answers “as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.220(a).)

Requests for Production of Documents

A motion to compel further responses to requests for production of documents “shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b); see also Kirkland v. Superior Court (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 92, 98 [stating that once good cause is shown, the burden shifts to the responding party to justify the objection].) Where electronically stored information is “not readily accessible,” the responding party bears the burden of demonstrating the burden. (Code Civ.

Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (d).) See Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 549 (“the party opposing discovery has an obligation to supply the basis for this determination”]; see also West Pico Furniture Co. v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 407, 417 [an “objection based upon burden must be sustained by evidence showing the quantum of work required”].)

The burden is on the party moving to compel discovery to “set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the inspection demand,” and “mere generalities” are insufficient. (Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Superior Ct. (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 223-24; see also Bd. of Registered Nursing (2021) 59 Cal.App.5th 1011, 1041 [holding that the moving party’s “explanation was far too general to support the production of every document in identified categories”]). Fishing expeditions are improper, particularly where the requests “plac[e] more burden upon the adversary than the value of the information warrants.” (Calcor, 53 Cal.App.4th at 225.)

DISCUSSION

Requests for Admission

Request for Admission Nos. 6 and 7: This RFA asks Clearview to admit that its facial vector database contains the biometric data, biometric identifiers, biometric information, and/or facial vectors of Plaintiffs. Clearview’s response includes objections (vague and ambiguous; overbroad, compound) and states that “Clearview cannot answer this request without probe images of the named individual plaintiffs in order to search for any image of those persons which may be in Clearview’s possession.”

The motion is GRANTED IN PART as to this request. Defendant’s objections are overruled.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

RG21096898: Renderos VS Clearview AI, Inc. 08/26/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses filed by Malkia Devich Cyril (Plaintiff) + CRS# 941817136243 in Department 18 The request is not facially vague and ambiguous or overbroad. The request is also not compound; it seeks an admission as to whether Defendant possesses discrete identifiers of Plaintiffs.

It appears that Defendant’s substantive response that it cannot answer the RFA because it needs to be given images of Plaintiffs with which to guide a search of its databases. If this is so, Defendant must provide a more comprehensive response explaining its inability to respond to the request; i.e., why the “probe images” are required such that the request cannot be responded to without them, and what actions Defendant took to attempt to respond.

Requests for Admission Nos. 7, 19, 20, and 21 all appear to be follow-ons to RFA 6 in that each request assumes that Defendant admitted RFA 6. In light of the fact that Defendant claims an inability to admit or deny RFA No. 6, it thus cannot respond to this request. Plaintiffs’ motion is GRANTED IN PART as to this request to the extent that Defendant must either provide admit/deny responses to each request or explain in greater detail the reasons why a response is not possible.

Special Interrogatories

SROG No. 1 asks Defendant to “[d]escribe the total number of queries, uploads, or searches that have been performed on any CLEARVIEW FACIAL RECOGNITION APP OR SOFTWARE that have returned information about any individual.”

Defendant responded with only objections (overbreadth, burden, relevance, privacy, confidentiality, compound).

The motion is DENIED as to this request. Defendant’s overbreadth, burden and relevance objections are sustained. This request does not appear to be reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence as to Plaintiffs’ claims. It is unclear why the number of queries performed on Defendant’s platforms has any relevance as to whether Plaintiffs’ likeness was misappropriated. The term “any individual” appears impermissibly broad and similarly not reasonably calculated to lead to evidence applicable to Plaintiffs’ claims.

SROG No. 2 asks Defendant to “[I]DENTIFY all websites, online platforms, search engines, or any other sources (INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO social media platforms) from which YOU have collected or attempted to collect images of individuals. For each, state the date(s) of collection and the method(s) used.”

Defendant responded with only objections (overbreadth, burden, relevance, privacy, confidentiality, compound).

Defendant’s opposition claims that Plaintiff withdrew this request, but Plaintiff’s reply brief appears to contradict that assertion. The motion is GRANTED as to this request. Defendant’s

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

RG21096898: Renderos VS Clearview AI, Inc. 08/26/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses filed by Malkia Devich Cyril (Plaintiff) + CRS# 941817136243 in Department 18 objections are overruled. The request plainly has relevance to Plaintiffs’ misappropriation claims; the sources from which Defendant allegedly collected Plaintiffs’ likeness is relevant and discoverable. Defendant does not describe a burden warranting denial of the motion or narrowing of the request. Defendant must provide a complete, code-compliant response to this request.

SROG No. 3 asks Defendant to “[d]escribe in detail each method YOU have used to SCRAPE, collect, acquire, or obtain photographs, images, videos, video frames, BIOMETRIC DATA, BIOMETRIC IDENTIFIERS, BIOMETRIC INFORMATION and/or FACIAL VECTORS of individuals from online sources, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO automated SCRAPING, manual collection, or receipt from third parties.”

Defendant’s response includes objections (vague and ambiguous, overbreadth, burden, relevance, privacy, confidentiality, compound) and refers Plaintiffs to the deposition of Thomas Jackson Mulcaire (Sept. 2, 2022 at 30:12-33:22.)

The motion is GRANTED as to this request. Defendant’s objections are overruled. Defendant’s burden and overbreadth objections appear to lack merit; describing its methods of collecting data does not require burdensome searches or document collection/review. It only requires a written description. Defendant’s opposition separate statement claims that it provided responsive information to this interrogatory, but a reference to a four-year-old deposition transcript is not a substitute for a proper written response.

SROG No. 6 asks Defendant to “[i]DENTIFY all entities, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO law enforcement agencies or municipal governments, to whom YOU have marketed, demonstrated, provided trial access, sold licenses, or otherwise granted access to YOUR FACIAL VECTOR DATABASE and/or any CLEARVIEW FACIAL RECOGNITION APP OR SOFTWARE. INCLUDE dates, access terms, and whether access is ongoing.”

Defendant’s response includes only objections (overbreadth, burden, relevance, privacy, confidentiality).

Defendant claims that it has sufficiently responded to this request after meet and confer correspondence, but this response was not provided in Defendant’s opposition separate statement, Plaintiffs do not confirm this, and neither side refers to meet and confer correspondence on this issue.

The motion is GRANTED as to this request. Defendant does not sufficiently explain the basis for its objections to this request. It would appear that this request could be satisfied through review of Defendant’s client lists, sales records, and/or marketing communications. This does not constitute a burden sufficient to deny the motion. The information sought also appears at least potentially relevant to Plaintiffs’ damages claims.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

RG21096898: Renderos VS Clearview AI, Inc. 08/26/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses filed by Malkia Devich Cyril (Plaintiff) + CRS# 941817136243 in Department 18 SROG No. 9 asks Defendant to “[i]DENTIFY all CLEARVIEW staff responsible for collecting/SCRAPING data or generating of FACIAL VECTORS, INCLUDING the number of PERSONS, their roles, organization charts, job descriptions, and their companies (if outside contractors).”

Defendant’s response includes objections (vague and ambiguous, overbreadth, burden, relevance, privacy, confidentiality, compound) and states that it would supplement its response after entry of an appropriate protective order. Defendant also states in opposition that it identified the necessary individuals in supplemental responses served July 13. Plaintiffs’ reply does not indicate that they withdraw this request.

The motion is DENIED as to this request. Defendant’s overbreadth and relevance objections are sustained. Plaintiffs do not adequately explain how learning the identities of all staff involved in data collection or generation is relevant to their individual claims. Plaintiffs can propound more targeted discovery or depose the individuals already identified to learn more about Defendant’s operations and identify additional witnesses with potentially relevant knowledge. This interrogatory as written is too broad.

SROG No. 10 asks Defendant to “[s]tate whether photographs, images, videos, and/or video frames of the PLAINTIFFS’ were used in connection with the training of YOUR FACIAL RECOGNITION technology or the CLEARVIEW FACIAL RECOGNITION APP OR SOFTWARE.”

Defendant’s response consists only of objections and a statement that the interrogatory cannot be answered. Similar to the discussion of RFA No. 6 above, this interrogatory appears to assume that Defendant possesses photographs, images, videos, and/or video frames of Plaintiffs. If Defendant does not in fact possess these, it is difficult to determine how Defendant would respond to this request. It is also unclear what relevance this request has to Plaintiffs’ claims. The motion is therefore DENIED.

Requests for Production

Due to the sheer volume of requests placed at issue in Plaintiffs’ motion, the court will briefly address these requests in batches.

Plaintiffs’ reply indicates that they withdraw the motion as to RFPDs 5, 9, 10, 14, 17, 18, 24, and 40.

Requests 1-4: The motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as to these requests. Each of these requests is overbroad in that they seek “all documents” pertaining to core aspects of Defendant’s operation without limitation on time, category, or any other parameter that could be used to make the requests more manageable. Moreover, the court is dubious that such a broad

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

RG21096898: Renderos VS Clearview AI, Inc. 08/26/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses filed by Malkia Devich Cyril (Plaintiff) + CRS# 941817136243 in Department 18 request is likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant’s responses indicate a willingness to meet and confer. The court ORDERS the parties to do so with the goal of narrowing these requests to a manageable scope in line with Plaintiffs’ claims.

Requests 6, 7: These requests appear to be largely duplicative. The motion is DENIED as to these requests. Defendant contends in opposition that it has produced “nonprivileged representative terms, guidelines, manuals, and like documents provided to the Municipal Defendants during the relevant period”. This response appears adequate.

Request 8 asks Defendant to produce “[a]ll Documents and Communications concerning the ability to opt-out, decline, or reject inclusion in Your Facial Vector Database, Clearview Facial Recognition App or Software or Your Facial Recognition technology, Including, but not limited to: (a) all Documents concerning any request by any Person to have the Person’s information, Including the Person’s photograph(s), image(s), video(s), and/or video frame(s), Biometric Data, Biometric Identifiers and/or Biometric Information withdrawn, deleted, or otherwise removed from Your Facial Vector Database; and (b) all Documents showing Your response and/or any action(s) You took in response to the request.”

Defendant asserts objections and responds that it is willing to meet and confer as to this request. Its opposition states that it has “agreed to provide the only proportional discovery the request could properly require and has addressed the opt-out issue through its CEO declaration.”

The motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as to this request. The request as stated is impermissibly broad – it contains no limitations as to time or scope and, as written, seeks information from countless individuals with no involvement in this case. Defendant’s agreement to respond appears appropriate tailored to the issues of this action. Plaintiffs may renew the motion as to this request if, after further good faith meet and confer, Defendant does not respond as promised.

Defendant contends that Plaintiffs withdrew Request No. 11 during meet and confer, but Plaintiffs’ reply states that Defendant’s response is insufficient. The request seeks “all documents and Communications concerning the sources of photographs, images, videos, video frames, or Facial Vectors in Your Facial Vector Database and/or accessible via Clearview Facial Recognition App or Software or Your products or other services.”

The motion is DENIED as to this request. The request is impermissibly overbroad as written. Plaintiffs do not explain how this request is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and there are no temporal or other limitations on this request. The request is also vague to the point of being nearly unintelligible.

Request 12 seeks “[a] functional copy of each version of any Clearview Facial Recognition App or Software.” Defendant’s response consists of only objections also contends that this response was withdrawn, and Plaintiffs again disagree.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

RG21096898: Renderos VS Clearview AI, Inc. 08/26/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses filed by Malkia Devich Cyril (Plaintiff) + CRS# 941817136243 in Department 18

The motion is DENIED as to this request. Again, Plaintiffs fail to explain how this request could lead to the discovery of admissible evidence or how its apparent invasion of Defendant’s right to confidentiality as to its proprietary business secrets is warranted.

Request 13 seeks “[d]ocuments and Communications sufficient to show all searches, queries, or uploads by each of the Municipal Defendants, Including the total number of the same per Municipal Defendant.”

Defendant’s response consists of only objections also contends that this response was withdrawn, and Plaintiffs again disagree. The motion is GRANTED IN PART as to this request. Defendant contends that the municipal defendants are more likely to possess responsive information to this request. Plaintiff does not discuss in reply whether it has sought this information from those parties. Defendant’s opposition also states that it does not retain records of searches made by its clients. If so, Defendant must serve an amended response stating this fact.

Request No. 15 seeks “[a]ll Communications with jurisdictions that have banned or are considering banning Facial Recognition.” Again, the parties disagree as to whether this request was withdrawn during meet and confer.

The motion is DENIED as to this request. Plaintiffs do not describe the relevance of this request. Given that Plaintiffs’ claims relate to alleged misappropriation of their likenesses, it is unclear how Defendant’s communications with municipalities that ban facial recognition have any relevance to their claims. The request is also impermissibly broad in scope, as it is not limited by time, geographical area, or other useful limiting parameters.

The motion is also DENIED as to Request 16, which is largely duplicative of No.

15.

Request No. 19 seeks “[a]ll Documents and Communications concerning revenue, profit, loss, income, and/or financial or economic value generated, created, received, by or derived from Your products or services and/or Biometric Data, Biometric Identifiers, Biometric Information or Facial Vectors, You collected, generated or extracted from photographs, images, videos, video frames, and/or facial scans.”

The motion is GRANTED IN PART as to this request. This request is plainly relevant to Plaintiffs’ damages claims, but is overly broad as written, as Defendant’s companywide financial condition likely does not pertain to Plaintiffs’ alleged damages. Defendant contends in opposition that Plaintiffs’ damages are more appropriately tied to licensing fees. While Defendant asserts that it did not pay Plaintiffs for their likenesses, that does not mean there are no plausible damages.

ORDER:

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

RG21096898: Renderos VS Clearview AI, Inc. 08/26/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses filed by Malkia Devich Cyril (Plaintiff) + CRS# 941817136243 in Department 18 The motion is GRANTED IN PART in accordance with the above. Defendant is ORDERED to provide complete, code-compliant amended or supplemental responses to the requests for which the motion is granted within 20 days of entry of this order.

CONTESTING TENTATIVE ORDERS

Notify the Court and all other parties no later than 4:00 pm the day before the scheduled hearing and identify the issues you wish to argue through the following steps.

1. Log into eCourt Public Portal - https://eportal.alameda.courts.ca.gov 2. Case Search 3. Enter the Case Number and select Search 4. Select the Case Name 5. Select the Tentative Rulings Tab 6. Select Click to Contest this Ruling 7. Enter your Name and Reason for Contesting 8. Select Proceed.