Dolores Striker Martin vs. Flenay USA, LLC

Dolores Striker Martin vs. Flenay USA, LLC, 24CVP-0110

Hearing: Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production (Set One, Nos. 1-12)

Date: September 1, 2026

Decedent Dolores Jean Striker Martin filed this action on April 2, 2024, against Garden View Inn, Dimfna Koc (Ms. Koc or Defendant), and Flenay USA LLC (Flenay) (collectively Defendants), alleging causes of action for negligence, willful misconduct, elder abuse and neglect, and negligence per se arising from Ms. Martin’s alleged fall at Garden View Inn, the assisted living/residential care facility where she resided. Ms. Martin died on August 3, 2024.

On January 24, 2025, the Court granted Valerie Scott Mulholland’s (Plaintiff) request to file an amended complaint to substitute Ms. Mulholland as Decedent’s successor in interest. On June 2, 2025, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint (SAC).

On January 6, 2026, Plaintiff served Request for Production of Documents, Set 1, on Ms. Koc. (Luciano Dec., ¶ 2, Ex. B.) Ms. Koc served responses on February 9, 2026. (Luciano Dec., ¶ 2, Ex. C.) Plaintiff determined, that Ms. Koc’s responses to the Requests for Production are not code compliant.

Now before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion seeking to compel further responses to its Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, Nos. 1-12.

The motion to compel was timely served on March 23, 2026. (Proof of Service, 3/24/26.) Ms. Koc filed an opposition to the motion. 1 The motion will be granted in part.

I. MEET AND CONFER

A motion to compel further responses to demand for inspection shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Code of Civil Procedure section 2016.040. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b)(2).) A meet and confer declaration in support of a motion shall state facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2016.040, subd. (a).)

Plaintiff’s counsel, Jane Luciano, sent a meet and confer letter to defense counsel on February 22, 2026, “identifying the deficiencies” and “requesting supplemental, code-compliant

1 Plaintiff notes in her Reply that the Declaration of Emilie de la Motte was not served on Plaintiff. (Reply, p. 8, ll. 3-17.) While the title of Defendant’s opposition and the accompanying proof of service references Ms. de la Motte’s declaration, no such declaration appears to have been filed. 1

responses.” (Luciano Dec., ¶ 5, Ex. D.) On March 6, 2026, Defendant indicated she stands on her objections. (Id., ¶ 9.) The Court finds that Plaintiff adequately met and conferred prior to filing the motion.

II. MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION

A. Legal Standard

“Unless otherwise 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 in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2017.010.)

Under Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.210, subdivision (a) a response to a demand for inspection shall either be a statement of compliance, a representation that the party lacks the ability to comply, or an objection. A party who receives a response to a demand may move to compel a further response under Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310, subdivision (a), if a statement of compliance is incomplete or if a representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (a).)

The Court first must consider whether Plaintiffs have shown good cause for production of further documents, and if such good cause is established, then the burden is on Defendant to justify its objections. (Kirkland v. Superior Court (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 92, 98; Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b)(1).)

With respect to a statement of compliance, Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.220 requires:

A statement that the party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling has been directed will comply with the particular demand shall state that the production, inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, and related activity demanded, will be allowed either in whole or in part, and that all documents or things in the demanded category that are in the possession, custody, or control of that party and to which no objection is being made will be included in the production.

(Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.220.)

With respect to a statement of inability to comply, Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.230 requires:

A representation of inability to comply with the particular demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling shall affirm that a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry has been made in an effort to comply with that demand. This statement shall also specify whether the inability to comply is because the particular item or

category has never existed, has been destroyed, has been lost, misplaced, or stolen, or has never been, or is no longer, in the possession, custody, or control of the responding party. The statement shall set forth the name and address of any natural person or organization known or believed by that party to have possession, custody, or control of that item or category of item.

(Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.230.)

B.

Discussion

The Court first addresses the following issues that recur throughout Defendant’s responses.

First, Ms. Koc’s objection based on the misidentification of the entity, as “Flenay, Inc.” is overruled. The Requests reflect a clerical misnomer, Plaintiff’s meet and confer letter dated February 22, 2026 clarified that the intended entity is Defendant Flenay USA LLC. (Ex. D to Luciano Dec.) The Court finds Ms. Koc’s objection to be without merit. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310 subd. (a)(3), Coy v. Superior Court (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220 (interrogatories) [objecting party has burden of justifying the objection].) Ms. Koc shall respond on behalf of Defendant Flenay USA, LLC, noting the correction to the misnomer, as appropriate.

Second, Ms. Koc objects that certain Requests are directed to nonparty, Ercan de Jong (Ms. Koc’s husband), and further contends that no consumer notice was issued to him. The Court agrees. Under Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.010, inspection demands are limited to parties, and discovery from nonparties must proceed by deposition subpoena. (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2031.010 (parties), 2020.010 (non-parties); Unzipped Apparel, LLC v. Gary Bader (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 123, 127 [observing that Code of Civil Procedure section 2020.010 applies to nonparties and that a deposition subpoena is required].) To the extent Plaintiff seeks documents from nonparty Ercan de Jong through Requests propounded to Ms. Koc, the demands do not extend to him. Ms. Koc’s objection is sustained.

The parties will be prepared to address whether Ms. Koc’s husband should be formally given notice and afforded an opportunity to protect any privacy rights to the extent any accounts are held jointly or tax returns were filed jointly. (See Weil & Brown Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2026) ¶ 8:300.5 [“The person whose privacy is involved must be given notice of the discovery request and an opportunity to object to the invasion of the person’s privacy prior to disclosure”]; Weingarten v Superior Court (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 268, 278 [privacy interest in tax returns filed jointly].)

Third, referring to Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.030, subdivision (b) 2, Ms. Koc argues that the Requests are “void for vagueness” because they do not state “the propounding party, the responding party, or the set number.” (Opp., p. 2, ll. 24-25.) The objection lacks merit and is overruled. The title of the Requests for Production, reflects the required information: “Plaintiff

2 “In the first paragraph immediately below the title of the case, there shall appear the identity of the demanding party, the set number, and the identity of the responding party.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.030, subd. (b).) 3

Request for Production of Documents, Set 1 to Defendant Dimfna Koc.” (Ex. B to Luciano Dec., pdf p. 3.) Further, any technical defect did not prejudice Defendant. Ms. Koc’s responses to the Requests for Production identify the propounding party (Plaintiff), the responding party (Dimfna Koc), and that the responses pertain to Set One. (Ex. C to Luciano Dec., pdf p. 3.)

Ms. Koc also asserts that “Plaintiff already propounded comprehensive discovery (this is a set two). (See Exhibit B, No. 12.)” (Opp., p. 3, ll. 10-11.) The basis for this assertion is unclear. The Court has not located support for it in Exhibit B to Ms. Luciano’s declaration. The parties shall be prepared to address this issue at the hearing.

Plaintiff seeks to compel further responses to Request for Production nos. 1-12.

Request for Production Nos. 1 and 2: These Requests seek Ms. Koc and/or Ercan de Jong’s statements in Forms I-129, DS-160, and or DS-156E filed with either the Department of State and/or Immigration and Naturalization Service, and bank account, securities, and real property records, including loans, showing ownership, custody, or control or assets held in the Netherlands in their individual names.

Defendant objects to the Requests on various grounds including overbreadth, invasion of privacy rights, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant objects that the Requests seeks immigration-related documents that are protected under federal law and concern her personal immigration status. Ms. Koc further objects that the Requests improperly presume she submitted immigration forms relating to Plaintiff or the alleged transactions, an assumption Ms. Koc contends is unsupported and irrelevant.

“The party asserting a privacy right must establish a legally protected privacy interest, an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in the given circumstances, and a threatened intrusion that is serious. [Citation.] The party seeking information may raise in response whatever legitimate and important countervailing interests disclosure serves, while the party seeking protection may identify feasible alternatives that serve the same interests or protective measures that would diminish the loss of privacy.

A court must then balance these competing considerations. [Citation.]” (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 552.) There is no compelling interest or need requirement based on Williams, in every case, but rather, the court is to consider the type of privacy, the seriousness of invasion, and the availability of alternatives and protective measures. (Id., 556-559.) Discovery will not be ordered if the information sought is available from other sources or through less intrusive means. (Allen v.

Superior Court (1984) 151 Cal.App.3d 447, 449 [applying to third party privacy rights].)

Relying on two decisions, Defendant argues in opposition that document requests regarding immigration may be obtained on a showing of “clear and convincing evidence that the inquiry is necessary to comply with federal law” and that “immigration status and related documents are irrelevant to prove liability.” (Opp., p. 4, ll. 13-18, citing Manuel v. Superior Court (2022) 82 Cal.App.5th 719 3 and Hernandez v. Paicius (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 452.) Defendant further

3 The opposition incorrectly cites as “Manuel v. Sup. Ct. (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 10-15.” (Opp., p. 4, ll. 14-15.) 4

argues, “[i]mmigration applications contain intensely personal identifying, financial, family, and immigration-status information concerning Ms. Koc and nonparties. In addition to the personal information in immigration applications, today’s political climate causes a real fear of arrest or deportation through such disclosure. Ms. Koc does not want to jeopardize her family’s immigration application through disclosure.” (Opp., p. 4, ll. 18-22.)

Immigration status is a protected category in civil discovery. “Neither discovery of a person’s immigration status, nor evidence of a person’s immigration status, is allowed in civil actions for personal injury or wrongful death. (Evid C §§ 351.2, 351.3)” (Thomas, Cal. Civil Ctrm. Hbook. & Desktop Ref. (2026 ed.) § 21:16.) The instant case involves Plaintiff’s Decedent alleged fall at the facility where she resided. Plaintiff’s Request for statements made on immigration application(s) is a serious invasion of her expectation of privacy over her immigration status.

In Plaintiff’s meet and confer letter, she points out that “[t]hese forms are directly relevant to the issues of unity of interest and ownership, Commingling/operational control and representations made which are inconsistent with the Defendants litigation position.” (Ex. D to Luciano Dec, pdf p. 4.) Plaintiff additional notes that the Request is not seeking immigration “status” per se. (Ibid.) Plaintiff additionally asserts that any privacy concerns can be addressed through a protective order or redactions of personal information. (Id., p. 5.)

While Plaintiff argues that she is not seeking information about Defendant’s immigration status, Plaintiff does not address how revealing redacted statements on these forms does not inherently disclose immigration status and how redaction and protective orders fully resolve that problem.

The parties should be prepared to discuss how the Court can “accommodate both the need for discovery and the [privacy] interests that inhibit it.” (See Weil & Brown Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2026) ¶ 8:294.1.)

Request for Production Nos. 3, 9, 10: These Requests seek Flenay’s corporate governance and formation documents (shareholder meeting minutes, articles of incorporation, resolutions, and bylaws), correspondence to and from Flenay to either Ms. Koc and/or Ercan de Jong, “[a]ny documents relating to the question why Flenay was incorporated in the State of Hawaii yet does not do business there,” and tax returns filed by Flenay in Hawaii or California from the time of incorporation to the present.

With respect to these Requests, Defendant asserted objections based on misidentification of the entity, as previously noted, the objections are overruled.

Defendant also asserts a privacy objection regarding the entity’s tax records. A party asserting a privacy interest in response to discovery has the burden of establishing the extent and the seriousness of the prospective invasion. (Williams v. Superior Court, supra, 3 Cal.5th at p. 557.) The Court weighs that showing against the countervailing interests identified by the propounding party. (Ibid.) “What suffices to justify an invasion will . . . vary according to the context.” (Ibid.) “While corporations do have a right to privacy, it is not a constitutional right.” (SCC Acquisitions, Inc. v. Superior Court (2015) 243 Cal.App.4th 741, 755-756.) “Assuming a business entity has a right of privacy, courts must determine whether it is outweighed by the relevance of the information sought to the subject matter in the pending action. ‘[D]oubts as to relevance should

generally be resolved in favor of permitting discovery.’” (Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2026) ¶ 8:297.5, citing Hecht, Solberg, Robinson, Goldberg & Bagley v. Sup.Ct. (Panther) (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 579, 593-594.)

The Court finds that the entity’s tax records are relevant to this action, and a stipulated protective order balances the parties’ interests and protects Defendant and third parties’ privacy rights. Request 10 is limited to “schedules, K-1s, balance sheets, or similar materials reflecting capital contributions and distributions, and portions reflecting the financial condition of Flenay USA LLC from formation through the subject incident.” (Reply, p. 6, ll. 19-22.) Defendant shall be compelled to provide a further response and produce all responsive documents, subject to a protective order.

The parties shall meet and confer regarding a proposed protective order to limit the dissemination of any confidential information obtained in discovery.

Request for Production Nos. 4 and 6: These Requests seek documents reflecting any personal guaranties by Ms. Koc and/or Ercan de Jong for (1) loans made to Flenay by U.S. financial institutions where the proceeds were used in the entity’s business; and (2) any lease(s) making Ms. Koc and/or Ercan de Jong personally liable for the real property known as Garden View Inn.

Defendant objects in part on the basis that the information sought is overbroad, assumes facts not in evidence, and asserts a privacy interest. The objections are overruled. The Court finds that the documents are directly relevant to this action (i.e. alter ego allegations), and that redaction of identifying information sufficiently balances the parties’ interests and protects privacy rights. Request No. 6 is limited to lease(s) for Garden View Inn and limited to the period from the formation of Flenay USA LLC through the date of the incident. (See Ex. D to Luciano Dec., pdf p. 7.) Defendant shall be compelled to provide a further response and produce all responsive documents, subject to the protective order.

Request for Production No. 5: This Request seeks documents appointing Ms. Koc as agent for service of process for Flenay; deeds reflecting Ms. Koc’s address, as agent for service of process for Flenay; and copies of lawsuits served on Ms. Koc in her capacity as agent for service of process for Flenay.

Defendant objects based on the failure to comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.030 and misidentification of the entity. The objections are overruled. The Court finds that the documents are directly relevant to this action. Defendant shall be compelled to provide a further response and produce all responsive documents.

Request for Production No. 7: This Request seeks “[a]ny bank records which record deposits to any account held by Flenay..., any bank records which record deposits to Flenay... by Dimfna Kok de Jong or Ercan de Jong. any bank records which record deposits from Flenay..., to either Dimfna Kok de Jong or Ercan de Jong’s personal accounts.

Defendant objects based on the failure to comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.030 and misidentification of the entity. Defendant also asserts a privacy objection regarding financial

documents.

A right of privacy exists as to a party’s confidential financial affairs, even when the information sought is admittedly relevant to the litigation. (Cobb v. Sup.Ct. (Tleel) (1979) 99 Cal.App.3d 543, 550; see Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2026) § 8:303.)

The Court finds that the documents are directly relevant to this action (i.e. alter ego allegations), and that redaction of identifying information and a protective order sufficiently balances the parties’ interests and protects Defendant and third parties’ privacy rights. Defendant shall be compelled to provide a further response and produce all responsive documents limited to the period from formation through the date of the subject incident and limited to records reflecting deposits or transfers between Flenay and Ms. Koc, subject to the protective order. (See Ex. D to Luciano Dec., pdf p. 8.)

Request for Production No. 8: This Request seeks documents reflecting the capitalization of Flenay, Inc., including records of (1) deposits from any financial institution in the Netherlands to any U.S. financial institution where Ms. Koc and/or Ercan de Jong are account holders, and (2) deposits from any account held by Flenay to any bank account in any jurisdiction, including checks to any corporate or third party recipient in any jurisdiction.

Defendant objects based on the failure to comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.030 and misidentification of the entity. Defendant also asserts a privacy objection regarding financial documents.

A right of privacy exists as to a party’s confidential financial affairs, even when the information sought is admittedly relevant to the litigation. (Cobb v. Sup.Ct. (Tleel) (1979) 99 Cal.App.3d 543, 550; see Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2026) § 8:303.) “While corporations do have a right to privacy, it is not a constitutional right.” (SCC Acquisitions, Inc. v. Superior Court (2015) 243 Cal.App.4th 741, 755-756.) “Assuming a business entity has a right of privacy, courts must determine whether it is outweighed by the relevance of the information sought to the subject matter in the pending action. ‘[D]oubts as to relevance should generally be resolved in favor of permitting discovery.’” (Weil & Brown, Cal.

Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2026) ¶ 8:297.5, citing Hecht, Solberg, Robinson, Goldberg & Bagley v. Sup.Ct. (Panther) (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 579, 593- 594.)

The Court finds that the documents are directly relevant to this action (i.e. alter ego allegations), and that redaction of identifying information and a protective order sufficiently balances the parties’ interests and protects Defendant and third parties’ privacy rights. Defendant shall be compelled to provide a further response and produce all responsive documents, subject to the protective order.

Request for Production No. 11: This Request seeks documents demonstrating close-corporation status of Flenay, Inc. under California Corporations Code section 158.

Defendant objects based on the failure to comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.030 and misidentification of the entity. Since the Defendant entity is not a corporation, but a limited liability company, no further response is required.

Request for Production No. 12: This Request seeks documents including contracts or agreements between Plaintiff’s Decedent or Plaintiff and Flenay, Inc.

Defendant objects based on the failure to comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.030 and misidentification of the entity. The objections are overruled.

The Court finds that the documents are directly relevant to this action. Defendant shall be compelled to provide a further response and produce all responsive documents, subject to the protective order.

III. REQUESTS FOR SANCTIONS

“A request for a sanction must, in the notice of motion, identify every person, party, and attorney against whom the sanction is sought, and specify the type of sanction sought. The notice of motion must be supported by a memorandum of points and authorities, and accompanied by a declaration setting forth facts supporting the amount of any monetary sanction sought.” (Finley & Kelman, Cal. Discovery Citations (The Rutter Group 2026) § 1:16, citing Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.040.)

Here, as argued by Defendant, the notice of motion does not indicate that sanctions are sought. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.040.) Under the circumstances, the Court finds that imposing a sanction would be unjust. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (h).)

ORDER (PROPOSED)

The motion to compel further responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set 1 to Defendant Dimfna Koc is granted in part.

Defendant (Ms. Koc) is ordered to provide complete, verified, code-compliant further responses to Request for Production Nos. 3-12 without objections, and produce all responsive documents, within 20 days from the date of service of the notice of order. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2031.210, subd. (a)(1)-(2), 2031.220.) To the extent Defendant asserts that any documents are privileged, the supplemental responses should identify those documents and list them on a privilege log. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.240, subd. (c)(1).) This order extends only to Defendant Koc and not nonparty Ercan de Jong.

The parties shall meet and confer regarding a proposed protective order to limit the dissemination of any confidential information obtained in discovery.

The Court declines to impose sanctions. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (h).)

Plaintiff shall serve notice.

8