DOE, et al. vs REEVES, et al.

25CV136067: DOE, et al. vs REEVES, et al. 08/28/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel COMPLIANCE WITH DISCOVERY OBLIGATIONS AND FURTHER RESPONSES; filed by Jane Doe (Plaintiff) CRS# 419250236477 in Department 24

Tentative Ruling - 08/27/2026 Rebekah Evenson

The Motion to Compel compliance with discovery obligations and further responses filed by Jane Doe on 06/29/2026 is Granted in Part.

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Compliance with Discovery Obligations, Further Responses to Written Discovery, and Request for Monetary Sanctions, as against Defendant Nicholas P.W. Reeves M.D., is GRANTED, IN PART, as follows.

Plaintiffs’ request for supplemental responses to Form Interrogatories, “Written Interrogatories”, Requests for Admissions, and Demand for Production of Documents (all Set One) is DENIED as untimely. Reeves served verified responses to this discovery on April 10, 2026. Therefore, Plaintiffs had 45 days from service of Reeves’ responses to serve motion(s) to compel further responses, unless the deadline was extended in writing by Reeves. (See Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.300(c), 2031.310(c), and 2033.290(c).)

Reeves granted Plaintiffs an extension to file such a motion until June 15, 2026. (See Exhibit D to Plaintiff Jane Doe’s declaration.) However, this motion was not served on Reeves until June 28. It is undisputed that Reeves never agreed in writing to any further extension to file this motion beyond June 15. Therefore, the Court lacks jurisdiction to order supplemental responses to this discovery. (See Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410.)

Plaintiffs’ citation to Pelton-Shepherd Industries Inc. v. Delta Packaging Products Inc. (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1568,1585-1588) does not assist them here. First, Pelton does not address whether a party may be equitably estopped from relying on that statutory deadline to serve motions to compel further responses set forth in Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.300(c), 2031.310(c), and 2033.290(c). Second, equitable estoppel would not apply here in any event, because Plaintiffs present no evidence that Reeves’ counsel ever told them, in writing or otherwise, that Reeves would extend the statutory deadline to serve this motion.

To the contrary, Plaintiff asked for an extension beyond June 15, and Reeves did not respond. (See Exhibit F to Jane Doe’s declaration.) Plaintiffs could not reasonably believe that Reeves’ silence constituted a written agreement to extend the deadline to serve this motion.

Plaintiffs’ request that Reeves produce documents that he indicated he would produce in his verified response to Demand for Production of Documents Set One, dated April 10, 2026, is GRANTED. Reeves shall do so by September 25, 2026, if he has not done so already.

Sanctions of $3000 are awarded to Reeves against Plaintiff Jane Doe. The vast majority of the relief requested in this motion is timebarred, and Plaintiffs’ request for that relief is legally unmeritorious. Plaintiffs’ insistence on filing this motion caused Reeves to incur fees opposing it. 25CV136067: DOE, et al. vs REEVES, et al. 08/28/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel COMPLIANCE WITH DISCOVERY OBLIGATIONS AND FURTHER RESPONSES; filed by Jane Doe (Plaintiff) CRS# 419250236477 in Department 24

PLEASE NOTE that if anyone contests this tentative ruling, the hearing will take place on Friday, August 28 at 9:00 a.m.