Defendant SoCal Investment Group, Inc.’s Motion to Defer Class and PAGA Discovery; Plaintiff Jazmine Greenough’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories; Plaintiff Jazmine Greenough’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production
9
continues the May 21, 2026 status conference to September 10, 2026 at 9:00 a.m. in Department CX105. The parties are ordered to file a joint status conference statement at least 5 court days before the hearing. Clerk to give notice.
5 Kirshner v. Optima Tax Relief, LLC
2025-01523978 Status Conference in Case No. 2025-01523978
The court has reviewed the parties’ joint status conference statement filed May 15, 2026 (ROA 39), and based thereon continues the May 21, 2026 status conference to September 10, 2026 at 9:00 a.m. in Department CX105. The parties are ordered to file a joint status conference statement at least 5 court days before the hearing. Clerk to give notice.
6 Greenough v. SoCal Investment Group, Inc.
2025-01488601 Defendant SoCal Investment Group, Inc.’s Motion to Defer Class and PAGA Discovery
Defendant SoCal Investment Group, Inc. moves pursuant to Civil Procedure Code section 2019.020(b) for an order “deferring discovery on the merits of plaintiff’s . . . class claims and . . . PAGA claim until after a class certification motion is heard and decided.” Notice of Motion (ROA 58) at 2:6-8. For the following reasons, defendant’s motion is denied.
Civil Procedure Code section 2019.020 states: (a) Except as otherwise provided by a rule of the Judicial Council, a local court rule, or a local uniform written policy, the methods of discovery may be used in any sequence, and the fact that a party is conducting discovery, whether by deposition or another method, shall not operate to delay the discovery of any other party. (b) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), on motion and for good cause shown, the court may establish the sequence and timing of discovery for the convenience of parties and witnesses and in the interests of justice. Civ. Proc. Code § 2019.020.
“California law has long made clear that to require a party to supply proof of any claims or defenses as a condition of discovery in support of those claims or defenses is to place the cart before the horse.” Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 551.
Defendant argues discovery should be deferred until after class certification because plaintiff allegedly cannot satisfy the typicality requirement for class certification and allegedly lacks PAGA standing because “plaintiff personally has not suffered any injury.” Brief (ROA 52) at 1:9-13.
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?”
Defendant’s contention that “plaintiff kept her own time records, was herself responsible for making sure she took all required rest periods and meal periods, and represented in writing through her weekly time sheets that she had taken all required meal breaks,” and that therefore plaintiff has no viable rest and meal break claims “and therefor has no valid claims” against defendant ignores that plaintiff alleges several claims in addition to rest and meal break claims. ROA 2.
Furthermore, defendant ignores California Supreme Court authority holding that an alleged lack of standing does not constitute good cause to defer discovery. See Williams, 3 Cal.5th at 558-59 (“[T]he way to raise lack of standing is to plead it as an affirmative defense, and thereafter to bring a motion for summary adjudication or summary judgment, not to resist discovery until a plaintiff proves he or she has standing.”).
The appellate authorities defendant cites predate Williams and, in any event, neither Stephen v. Enterprise Rent-A- Car (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 806, nor Fight for the Rams v. Superior Court (1996) 41 Cal.App.4th 953, involves discovery in a class and PAGA action. Plaintiff to give notice.
Plaintiff Jazmine Greenough’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories
Plaintiff Jazmine Greenough moves to compel defendant SoCal Investment Group, Inc. to provide further responses to Special Interrogatories (Set Two) Nos. 7, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58 and 59. For the following reasons, plaintiff’s motion is granted in part and denied in part.
A party may move to compel further responses to interrogatories on the grounds that the answer is evasive or incomplete, an exercise of the option to produce documents under Civil Procedure Code section 2030.230 is unwarranted or the required specification of those documents is inadequate, and/or an objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general. Civ. Proc. Code § 2030.300(a).
On September 10, 2025 plaintiff served Special Interrogatories (Set Two) on defendant. Barvie Decl. (ROA 35) ¶ 5; Goonan Decl. (ROA 68) Ex.
6.
On October 17, 2025 defendant served responses to the Special Interrogatories (Set Two). Goonan Decl. (ROA 68) ¶ 12 & Ex.
8.
The parties subsequently engaged in meet and confer efforts regarding defendant’s objections to the special interrogatories at issue via written correspondence. Barvie Decl. (ROA 35) ¶¶ 6-8 & Exs. C, D, E & F. On December 1, 2025 plaintiff filed the instant motion to compel. ROA 35.
The interrogatories in dispute are addressed in turn below:
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 7: Please state which Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order, if any, YOU contend applies to each job position identified in Special Interrogatory No.
4.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 12: Please IDENTIFY all supervisor(s) who supervised the CLASS MEMBERS during the CLASS PERIOD.
RULING (Nos. 7 and 12): Granted. Defendant does not address the validity of its boilerplate objections to these interrogatories in the opposition (or elsewhere). As stated in the court’s concurrent ruling denying defendant’s motion to defer discovery, defendant’s contention that plaintiff is not an adequate class representative and does not have PAGA standing does not constitute good cause to resist discovery. Defendant’s arguments that Williams “does not address the situation present here,” and “does not support the conclusion that Plaintiff is entitled to merits discovery on the purported class claims and PAGA claim before class certification notwithstanding the serious questions whether Plaintiff is an adequate class representative and has PAGA standing as an ‘aggrieved employee,’” are simply incorrect.
Williams states: “[T]he way to raise lack of standing is to plead it as an affirmative defense, and thereafter to bring a motion for summary adjudication or summary judgment, not to resist discovery until a plaintiff proves he or she has standing.” Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 558-59.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 14: For each PAY CODE listed in response to Special Interrogatory No. 5 (sic), please provide an explanation regarding what each PAY CODE means (if you refer to documents in response to this special interrogatory, please identify the specific Bates numbers for the responsive documents).
RULING (No. 14): Granted. Defendant’s response does not comply with Civil Procedure Code section 2030.220(a), which states that an answer to an interrogatory must be “as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits.” Civ. Proc. Code § 2030.220(a). Defendant is ordered to provide a further Code-compliant response.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 15: Please DESCRIBE how YOU RECORDED the time CLASS MEMBERS started their shifts during the CLASS PERIOD. (For purposes of this request, “RECORDED” means the manner in which YOU documented, through written, recorded or other means the applicable start time of the period identified.)
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 16: Please DESCRIBE how YOU RECORDED the time CLASS MEMBERS ended their shifts during the CLASS PERIOD. (For purposes of this request, “RECORDED” means the manner in which YOU documented, through written, recorded or other means the applicable end time of the period identified.)
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 17: Please DESCRIBE how YOU recorded start and end times for CLASS MEMBERS’ meal periods during the CLASS PERIOD.
RULING (Nos. 15, 16, 17): Denied. Defendant provided a Codecompliant response.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 18: Please DESCRIBE YOUR meal period policies, practices, and procedures applicable to CLASS MEMBERS during the CLASS PERIOD.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 23: Please DESCRIBE YOUR rest period policies, practices, and procedures applicable to CLASS MEMBERS during the CLASS PERIOD.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 25: Please DESCRIBE each of YOUR expense reimbursement policies and/or procedures applicable to CLASS MEMBERS during the CLASS PERIOD.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 27: Please DESCRIBE each of YOUR compensation policies and/or procedures applicable to CLASS MEMBERS during the CLASS PERIOD.
RULING (Nos. 18, 23, 25, 27): Granted. Defendant’s response does not comply with Civil Procedure Code section 2030.220(a), which states that an answer to an interrogatory must be “as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits.” Civ. Proc. Code § 2030.220(a). Defendant is ordered to provide a further Codecompliant response.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 19: Please IDENTIFY each DOCUMENT evidencing CLASS MEMBERS’ recorded meal periods during the CLASS PERIOD.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 20: Please state the total number of MEAL PERIOD PREMIUMS YOU paid to CLASS MEMBERS during the CLASS PERIOD.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 21: Please IDENTIFY all meal period waivers applicable to CLASS MEMBERS during the CLASS PERIOD.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 22: Please IDENTIFY all on-duty meal period agreements applicable to CLASS MEMBERS during the CLASS PERIOD.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 24: Please state the total number of REST PERIOD PREMIUMS YOU paid to CLASS MEMBERS during the CLASS PERIOD.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 26: Please IDENTIFY each DOCUMENT DESCRIBING YOUR expense reimbursement policies and/or procedures applicable to CLASS MEMBERS during the CLASS PERIOD.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 28: Please IDENTIFY each DOCUMENT DESCRIBING YOUR compensation policies and/or procedures applicable to CLASS MEMBERS during the CLASS PERIOD.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 29: Please DESCRIBE each of YOUR COVID-19 policies and/or procedures applicable to CLASS MEMBERS during the CLASS PERIOD.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 30: Please IDENTIFY each DOCUMENT DESCRIBING YOUR COVID-19 policies and/or procedures applicable to CLASS MEMBERS during the CLASS PERIOD.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 32: Please IDENTIFY each DOCUMENT DESCRIBING YOUR SICK PAY policies, practices, and/or procedures applicable to CLASS MEMBERS during the CLASS PERIOD.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 33: Please DESCRIBE each of YOUR reporting time policies, practices, and/or procedures applicable to CLASS MEMBERS during the CLASS PERIOD.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 34: Please IDENTIFY each DOCUMENT DESCRIBING YOUR reporting time policies, practices, and/or procedures applicable to CLASS MEMBERS during the CLASS PERIOD.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 36: Please IDENTIFY each DOCUMENT DESCRIBING YOUR rounding policies, practices and/or procedures applicable to CLASS MEMBERS during the CLASS PERIOD.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 37: Please DESCRIBE each of YOUR timekeeping policies, practices and/or procedures applicable to CLASS MEMBERS during the CLASS PERIOD.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 38: Please IDENTIFY each DOCUMENT DESCRIBING YOUR timekeeping policies, practices and/or procedures applicable to CLASS MEMBERS during the CLASS PERIOD.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 41: Please IDENTIFY each DOCUMENT DESCRIBING YOUR overtime policies and/or procedures applicable to CLASS MEMBERS during the CLASS PERIOD.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 42: Please DESCRIBE each of YOUR scheduling policies and/or procedures applicable to CLASS MEMBERS during the CLASS PERIOD.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 43: Please IDENTIFY each DOCUMENT DESCRIBING YOUR scheduling policies and/or procedures applicable to CLASS MEMBERS during the CLASS PERIOD.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 50: Please IDENTIFY each DOCUMENT DESCRIBING YOUR policies for calculating the regular rate of pay for purposes of calculating the overtime rate to the CLASS MEMBERS during the CLASS PERIOD.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 52: Please IDENTIFY each DOCUMENT DESCRIBING YOUR policies for calculating the regular rate of pay for purposes of calculating the meal premiums paid to the CLASS MEMBERS during the CLASS PERIOD.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 54: Please IDENTIFY each DOCUMENT DESCRIBING YOUR policies for calculating the regular rate of pay for purposes of calculating sick pay paid to the CLASS MEMBERS during the CLASS PERIOD.
RULING (Nos. 19, 20, 21, 22, 24, 26, 28, 29, 30, 32, 33, 34, 36, 37, 38, 41, 42, 43, 50, 52, 54): Granted. Defendant does not address the validity of its boilerplate objections to these interrogatories in the opposition (or elsewhere). As stated in the court’s concurrent ruling denying defendant’s motion to defer discovery, defendant’s contention that plaintiff is not an adequate class representative and does not have PAGA standing does not constitute good cause to resist discovery. Defendant’s argument that Williams “does not address the situation present here,” and “does not support the conclusion that Plaintiff is entitled to merits discovery on the purported class claims and PAGA claim before class certification notwithstanding the serious questions whether Plaintiff is an adequate class representative and has PAGA standing as an ‘aggrieved employee,’” are simply incorrect.
Williams states: “[T]he way to raise lack of standing is to plead it as an affirmative defense, and thereafter to bring a motion for summary adjudication or summary judgment, not to resist discovery until a plaintiff proves he or she has standing.” Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 558-59.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 31: Please DESCRIBE each of YOUR SICK PAY policies, practices, and/or procedures applicable to CLASS MEMBERS during the CLASS PERIOD.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 35: Please DESCRIBE each of YOUR rounding policies, practices and/or procedures applicable to CLASS MEMBERS during the CLASS PERIOD.
RULING (Nos. 31, 35): Denied. Defendant provided a Codecompliant response.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 39: Please IDENTIFY each timekeeping system used to record time worked by CLASS MEMBERS for YOU during the CLASS PERIOD. (For purposes of this interrogatory, “IDENTIFY” shall mean to state the name of the timekeeping system and/or third-party provider of the timekeeping system, the version of the software, and the publisher of the software, and the dates it was used by YOU.)
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 40: Please DESCRIBE each of YOUR overtime policies and/or procedures applicable to CLASS MEMBERS during the CLASS PERIOD.
RULING (Nos. 39 and 40): Granted. Defendant’s response does not comply with Civil Procedure Code section 2030.220(a), which states that an answer to an interrogatory must be “as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits.” Civ. Proc. Code § 2030.220(a). Defendant is ordered to provide a further Code-compliant response.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 44: Please DESCRIBE each of YOUR INCENTIVE COMPENSATION policies and/or procedures applicable to CLASS MEMBERS during the CLASS PERIOD.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 45: Please IDENTIFY each DOCUMENT DESCRIBING YOUR INCENTIVE COMPENSATION policies and/or procedures applicable to CLASS MEMBERS during the CLASS PERIOD.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 46: Please STATE each item of INCENTIVE COMPENSATION YOU paid CLASS MEMBERS during the CLASS PERIOD. (For purposes of this interrogatory, “STATE” shall mean describing or setting forth in detail how the INCENTIVE COMPENSATION was earned.)
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 47: Please IDENTIFY each DOCUMENT DESCRIBING each form of INCENTIVE COMPENSATION paid to CLASS MEMBERS during the CLASS PERIOD.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 48: Please state how many times each type of INCENTIVE COMPENSATION was paid to CLASS MEMBERS during the CLASS PERIOD.
RULING (Nos. 44, 45, 46, 47, 48): Denied. These interrogatories do not comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.060(e) as the term “INCENTIVE COMPENSATION” is not defined.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 49: Please DESCRIBE each of YOUR policies for calculating the regular rate of pay for purposes of calculating the overtime rate to the CLASS MEMBERS during the CLASS PERIOD.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 51: Please DESCRIBE each of YOUR policies for calculating the regular rate of pay for purposes of calculating the meal premiums paid to the CLASS MEMBERS during the CLASS PERIOD.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 53: Please DESCRIBE each of YOUR policies for calculating the regular rate of pay for purposes of calculating sick pay paid to the CLASS MEMBERS during the CLASS PERIOD.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 55: Please IDENTIFY the mobile phone applications YOU required any and all CLASS MEMBERS to download on their personal cell phones.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 56: Please state the total number of workweeks worked by PLAINTIFF during the CLASS PERIOD (if you refer to documents in response to this special interrogatory, please identify the Bates numbers for the responsive documents).
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 57: Please state the total number of workweeks worked by PLAINTIFF during the PAGA PERIOD (if you refer to documents in response to this special interrogatory, please identify the Bates numbers for the responsive documents).
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 58: Please DESCRIBE each of YOUR expense reimbursement policies and procedures applicable to PLAINTIFF during the CLASS PERIOD.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 59: Please DESCRIBE each of YOUR mileage reimbursement policies and procedures applicable to PLAINTIFF during the CLASS PERIOD.
RULING (Nos. 49, 51, 53, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59): Denied. Defendant has provided a Code-compliant response.
Plaintiff’s and defendant’s requests for sanctions are denied. Defendant is ordered to serve by June 4, 2026 verified, Codecompliant further responses to Special Interrogatories (Set Two) Nos. 7, 12, 14, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 33, 34, 36, 37, 38, 41, 42, 43, 50, 52 and 54. Plaintiff to give notice.
Plaintiff Jazmine Greenough’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production
Plaintiff Jazmine Greenough moves to compel defendant SoCal Investment Group, Inc. to provide further responses to Requests for Production (Set One) Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10. For the following reasons, plaintiff’s motion is granted.
In the absence of contrary court order, a civil litigant’s right to discovery is broad. Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 551. “‘For discovery purposes, information is relevant if it “might reasonably assist a party in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement . . . .” [Citation.] Admissibility is not the test and information unless privileged, is discoverable if it might reasonably lead to admissible evidence.’” Garamendi v. Golden Eagle Ins. Co. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 694, 712 n.8.
A motion to compel further responses to requests for production must set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the discovery request. Civ. Proc. Code § 2031.310(b)(1). In order to meet the burden of showing good cause, the moving party must show relevance to the subject matter and specific facts justifying discovery. Glenfed Develop. Corp. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1117. If the moving party demonstrates good cause, the opposing party must justify any objections. Kirkland v Superior Ct. (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 92, 98.
On September 10, 2025 plaintiff served Requests for Production (Set One) on defendant. Barvie Decl. (ROA 34) ¶ 5; Goonan Decl. (ROA 76) Ex.
7.
On October 17, 2025 defendant served responses to Requests for Production (Set One). Goonan Decl. (ROA 76) Ex.
9.
The parties subsequently engaged in meet and confer efforts regarding defendant’s objections to the requests for production at issue via written correspondence. Barvie Decl. (ROA 34) ¶¶ 6-8 & Exs. C, D, E & F. On December 1, 2025 plaintiff filed the instant motion to compel. ROA 34.
The requests in dispute are addressed in turn below:
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1: Please PRODUCE all payroll records for each CLASS MEMBER, including PLAINTIFF, during the CLASS PERIOD in native electronic format.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2: Please PRODUCE all wage statements issued to each CLASS MEMBER, including PLAINTIFF, during the CLASS PERIOD.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3: Please PRODUCE all time records reflecting hours worked by each CLASS MEMBER, including PLAINTIFF, during the CLASS PERIOD in native electronic format.
RULING (Nos. 1, 2, 3): Granted. Defendant does not address the validity of its boilerplate objections to these document requests in the opposition (or elsewhere). As stated in the court’s concurrent ruling denying defendant’s motion to defer discovery, defendant’s contention that plaintiff is not an adequate class representative and does not have PAGA standing does not constitute good cause to resist discovery. Defendant’s arguments that Williams “does not address the situation present here,” and “does not support the conclusion that Plaintiff is entitled to merits discovery on the purported class claims and PAGA claim before class certification notwithstanding the serious questions whether Plaintiff is an adequate class representative and has PAGA standing as an ‘aggrieved employee,’” are simply incorrect.
Williams states: “[T]he way to raise lack of standing is to plead it as an affirmative defense, and thereafter to bring a motion for summary adjudication or summary judgment, not to resist discovery until a plaintiff proves he or she has standing.” Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 558-59. There is no basis for defendant to selectively produce records pertaining only to plaintiff.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4: Please PRODUCE all DOCUMENTS describing the job duties and/or responsibilities for PLAINTIFF during the CLASS PERIOD.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5: Please PRODUCE all DOCUMENTS evidencing YOUR timekeeping policies, practices and/or procedures applicable to PLAINTIFF during the CLASS PERIOD.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6: Please PRODUCE all DOCUMENTS evidencing YOUR rest period policies and rest period premiums, practices and/or procedures applicable to PLAINTIFF during the CLASS PERIOD.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7: Please PRODUCE all DOCUMENTS evidencing YOUR meal period and meal period premium policies, practices and/or procedures applicable to PLAINTIFF during the CLASS PERIOD.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8: Please PRODUCE all DOCUMENTS evidencing YOUR expenses reimbursement policies, practices and/or procedures applicable to PLAINTIFF during the CLASS PERIOD, including but not limited to any policy or procedure regarding reimbursement for personal cell phone usage and mileage.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 9: Please PRODUCE all employee handbooks applicable to PLAINTIFF during the CLASS PERIOD, including but not limited to any revisions, modifications, changes, edits and/or updates.
RULING (Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9): Granted. Plaintiff contends that despite defendant’s response that it will produce all responsive documents, no documents have been produced to date. Defendant does not dispute or otherwise address plaintiff’s contention that no responsive documents have been produced. Defendant is ordered to produce the responsive documents.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10: Please PRODUCE all DOCUMENTS identified in YOUR response to PLAINTIFF’S Second Set of Special Interrogatories, served herewith.
RULING (No. 10): Granted. Defendant’s response that it “did not identify any documents in its responses to the Second Set of Interrogatories” is not correct. See Defendant’s Responses to Special Interrogatories (Set Two) Nos. 15, 16, 17 & 39.
Defendant is ordered to serve verified, Code-compliant further responses to Requests for Production (Set One) Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 10 and to produce all nonprivileged responsive documents by June 4, 2026. Defendant is also ordered to produce all nonprivileged documents responsive to Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 by June 4, 2026. If defendant withholds any responsive documents based on any privilege, defendant shall also serve by June 4, 2026 a privilege log identifying all documents it has withheld from production on the basis of a privilege(s). The log shall identify the privilege(s) and set forth sufficient information for plaintiff and the court, if necessary, to evaluate the privilege claim(s). Plaintiff’s and defendant’s requests for sanctions are denied. Plaintiff to give notice.
Status Conference
The court has reviewed the parties’ joint status conference statement filed January 15, 2026 (ROA 62). The May 21, 2026 status conference is continued September 3, 2026 at 9:00 a.m. in Department CX105. The parties are ordered to file a joint status conference statement at least 5 court days before the hearing. Clerk to give notice.
7 Robles v. Avery Products Corporation
2024-01390483 Plaintiff’s Motion for Approval of PAGA Settlement
The court has reviewed and considered the papers, including the supplemental papers, filed in support of plaintiff’s motion for