ABRAHAM WOOD VS. JOSEPH BIRCH ET AL

Matter on the Law & Motion / Discovery calendar for Monday, September 29, 2025, Line 7. PLAINTIFF ABRAHAM WOOD's Motion To Compel Inspection Of Defendants Dog And Request For Sanctions.

Plaintiff Abraham Wood's motion to compel inspection of Defendants Joseph Birch and Emma Anderson-Smith's dog Monte is granted. "A party may demand that any other party... permit the party... to inspect and to photograph, test, or sample any tangible things that are in the party's possession, custody, or control." (Code Civ. Proc., section 2031.010, subd. (c)). A party may obtain discovery regarding "any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter." (Code Civ. Proc., section 2017.010.)

Birch and Anderson-Smith are ordered produce Monte for inspection, since the proposed inspection is not overly broad and is relevant to Wood's punitive damages claim and Defendants' comparative negligence defense. Defendants' opposition focuses on privacy concerns if the inspection were to happen at Defendants' home; however, Wood's Demand for Inspection specifically says the inspection could happen at a "mutually agreed-upon place." (Pl.'s Demand for Inspection, p. 2, ll. 25-26.) The parties are ordered to meet and confer in good faith within two weeks to select a mutually agreeable location and a date. Any party may make a renewed motion if the parties are unable to agree on those terms.

Code of Civil Procedure, section 2031.300, subdivision (c), provides that "the court shall impose a monetary sanction... against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to a demand for inspection... unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust." Here, Defendants did not act with substantial justification in opposing the motion to compel, since they primarily raised privacy concerns that were irrelevant given the language of the Demand for Inspection. However, the motion is straightforward enough that the court does not award full fees to Wood. Defendants shall pay $3000 to Wood within 30 days of entry of this order.

For the 9:00 a.m. calendar, all attorneys and parties may appear in Department 301 remotely or in person. Remote hearings will be conducted by videoconference using Zoom. (Dept. 301 Zoom ID 161 502 4290; Passcode 700956.) To appear remotely at the hearing, go to the court's website at sfsuperiorcourt.org under "Online Services," navigate to "Tentative Rulings," and click on the appropriate link, or dial the corresponding phone number. Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to contestdept301tr@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number. The text of the email shall include the name and contact information, including email address, of the attorney or party who will appear at the hearing.

Counsel for the prevailing party is required to prepare a proposed order which repeats verbatim the substantive portion of the tentative ruling and must email it to contestdept301tr@sftc.org prior to the hearing even if the tentative ruling is not contested.

The court no longer provides a court reporter in the Law & Motion or Discovery Department. Parties may retain their own reporter, who may appear in the courtroom or remotely. A retained reporter must be a California certified court reporter (CSR), for only a CSR's transcript may be used in California courts. If a CSR is being retained, include in your email all of the following: their name, CSR and telephone numbers, and their individual work email address. =(301/CVA) | |