JANE DOE vs KEVIN M. KELLY, DC

2025CUNP054830: JANE DOE vs KEVIN M. KELLY, DC 09/09/2026 in Department 42 Motion to Compel FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE (NOS. 29, 31, AND 32) AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE (NOS. 17 AND 18), REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS

Motion: Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant’s Further Responses to Special Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents

Tentative Ruling:

As to SI No. 29, the motion is granted with the following limitations: the time period is limited to 2015 to the present and the complaint must relate to Defendant’s conduct at work or his role as an employer or chiropractor. Individuals who would be identified in response to this SI can be identified as Roes and discovery of their names may be subject to the use of a notice and opt in procedure. Objections other than those based on attorney-client privilege and work product are overruled.

As to SI No. 31, the motion is granted with the following limitations: the time period is limited to 2015 to the present and the complaint/investigation/prosecution must relate to Defendant’s conduct at work or his role as an employer or chiropractor. Individuals who would be identified in response to this SI can be identified as Roes and discovery of their names may be subject to the use of a notice and opt in procedure. Objections other than those based on attorney-client privilege and work product are overruled.

As to SI No. 32, the motion is granted with the following limitations: the time period is limited to 2015 to the present. Individuals who would be identified in response to this SI can be identified as Roes and discovery of their names may be subject to the use of a notice and opt in procedure. Objections other than those based on attorney-client privilege and work product are overruled.

As to RPD No. 17, the motion is granted. The names of individuals who would be identified in response to this SI can be redacted and discovery of their names may be subject to the use of a notice and opt in procedure. Objections other than those based on attorney-client privilege and work product are overruled.

As to RPD No. 18, is granted with the following limitations: the time period is limited to 2015 to the present The names of individuals who would be identified in response to this SI can be redacted and discovery of their names may be subject to the use of a notice and opt in procedure. Objections other than those based on attorney-client privilege and work product are overruled.

Defendant shall comply with section 2031.240 regarding any document withheld on grounds that it is protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or work product doctrine.

2025CUNP054830: JANE DOE vs KEVIN M. KELLY, DC

The Court denies monetary sanctions pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.300, subdivision (d) and 2031.310, subdivision (h).) The Court finds reasonable limitations should have been discussed and agreed to and sanctions otherwise would not serve the interests of justice here.

2