| Case | County / Judge | Motion | Ruling | Indexed | Hearing |
|---|
Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set Two; Request for Monetary Sanctions
Set for Law and Motion/Discovery Calendar on Tuesday, August 19, 2025, Line 6. 2 - PLAINTIFF ALEXA WHITE's Motion To Compel Further Responses By Defendant Mary Lousie Beecroft, Trustee Of The Mary Lousie Beecroft Revocable Trust To Plaintiff'S Request For Production Of Documents, Set Two And Request For Monetary Sanctions Against Defendant Mary Louise Beecroft, Trustee Of The Mary Louise Beecroft Revocable Trust And Her Attorney.
Plaintiff Alexa White's motions to compel further responses to her set two document requests from defendant Mary Beecroft, as an individual and in her capacity as a trustee, and for monetary sanctions are denied in full. Ms. Beecroft's request for monetary sanctions is also denied.
Ms. White's reliance on Duncan v. Kihagi (2021) 68 Cal. App. 5th 519 to obtain discovery regarding other property owned by Ms. Beecroft is misplaced. Duncan does not establish a bright line rule that other property evidence is always admissible in a rental unit habitability case and it does not address the discoverability of such information. The facts in Duncan are on the extreme end of showing a pattern of rental unit habitability abuses and thus that case is readily distinguishable from most other cases alleging habitability abuses.
The court is unaware of any case law or statutory authority establishing trial admissibility or discoverability of other property information for all habitability cases. Consequently, the court believes that discoverability of such normally private and sensitive information is discoverable only where the plaintiff makes some showing from public records or other source that the defendant has engaged in a pattern of habitability abuses. Because Ms. White has made no such showing, her motion is denied.
Because Ms. White's motion does not lack substantial justification, Ms. Beecroft's request for fees is also denied.
For the 9:00 a.m. calendar, all attorneys and parties may appear in Department 302 remotely or in person. Remote hearings will be conducted by videoconference using Zoom. (Dept. 302 Zoom ID 160 409 7690; Passcode 516287.) 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 contestdept302tr@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.
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?”
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 contestdept302tr@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 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.
=(302/HEK) | |