Motion for a protective order staying discovery
Thus, the motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to appear for deposition on a mutually agreed-upon date within 30 days.
Defendants to give notice. 105 Doe vs. Doe 1, 25-01495743 Defendant Nancy Williams moves for a protective order staying all merits discovery pending adjudication of defendant’s Demurrer to plaintiff John WA Doe’s First Amended Complaint (FAC) and permitting only narrowly tailored discovery regarding statute of limitations issues.
Defendant argues that a protective order staying any discovery not related to the statute of limitations on plaintiff’s claims should be stayed pending resolution of the pleadings because allowing discovery into sensitive and private issues when plaintiff’s claims may be time-barred would expose her to unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, undue burden, and undue expense. Defendant argues that it is highly likely that plaintiff discovered the link between his claimed injuries and the alleged abuse years ago when he began therapy in 2000, such that his claims are likely timebarred.
Defendant cites no authority in support of the request for a stay pending resolution of a demurrer. Indeed, unlike the anti-SLAPP statute, which imposes a stay on discovery after a special motion to strike is filed, the demurrer statutes impose no such stay. (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 425.16(g), 430.10, et seq.) Further, a plaintiff is entitled to reasonable discovery even if a demurrer to his or her pleading has been sustained with leave to amend. (See Budget Finance Plan v. Superior Court (1973) 34 Cal.App.3d 794, 796-798.) It follows that a plaintiff must be entitled to conduct discovery, within the time limits set forth in Code of Civil Procedure sections 2025.210, 2030.020, and 2031.020, after a demurrer has been filed and before it has been heard.
Moreover, defendant has not supported any claim of unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, undue burden, or expense. While defendant’s counsel asserts
that the written discovery propounded by plaintiff seeks information regarding topics such as separation, romantic relationships, and conversations about sexual abuse, defendant does not argue that these topics are irrelevant to plaintiff’s claims or that the discovery was served for some improper purpose such as to cause annoyance or embarrassment without any relation to the claims raised. Thus, while the written discovery may cause some annoyance or embarrassment, defendant has failed to show that such annoyance or embarrassment would be unwarranted.
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?”
Further, defendant presents no evidence regarding undue burden or expense. Defendant’s Motion rests upon the assertion that plaintiff likely discovered his injuries before the time alleged in the FAC because he received therapy treatment beginning in 2000 and therefore had “ample opportunity” to discovery any alleged causal connection many years earlier. The Court is not inclined to stay discovery for reasons based purely on defendant’s speculation.
In light of the above, the Motion for Protective Order is DENIED.
Defendants’ Demurrer to Complaint filed on November 10, 2025 is taken OFF CALENDAR as MOOT, in light of plaintiff’s filing of the FAC. The Demurrer to First Amended Complaint filed on February 18, 2026 remains set for September 10, 2026.
Moving party to give notice. 106 Hernandez vs. State of California, 23-01355122 Cross-Defendant, Orange County Transportation Authority (“OCTA”), moves for an order sustaining the demurrer, without leave to amend, to the Cross-Complaint of Del Cerro Mobile Estates (“Del Cerro”) filed on July 22, 2024, and each of the five causes of action therein for failure to plead facts to support the cause of action and for uncertainty, and dismissing the action as to OCTA.
At issue is Del Cerro’s first cause of action for total or comparative equitable indemnity, second cause of action for contribution, third cause of action for declaratory relief, fourth cause of action for express indemnity, and fifth cause of action for comparative fault.
Late Opposition OCTA contends that Del Cerro’s opposition was untimely and should be disregarded. Specifically, OCTA asserts that any opposition was due no later than May 14, 2026, and Del Cerro did not serve its opposition until May 15, 2026.
While a paper may not be rejected for filing on the ground that it was untimely submitted for filing, the court, in its discretion, may refuse to consider a late filed paper. (California Rules of Court, rule 3.1300(d).) If the court does so, the minutes or order must so indicate. (Ibid.) In determining whether to receive an untimely filed document, “trial courts must consider the specific contexts in which such motions arise and should employ a flexible rather than rigid or formalistic approach to decisionmaking.” (Kapitanski v. Von’s Grocery Co. (1983) 146 Cal.App.3d 29, 32-33.) “An attorney’s neglect in untimely filing opposing papers must be evaluated in light of the reasonableness of the attorney’s conduct. [Citation.]” (Id. at p. 33.) “Also pertinent are the effects of strict enforcement on the rights of the parties and the furtherance of justice. [Citations.]” (Ibid.)
Here, the opposition was filed and served one day late. As OCTA has filed a timely and substantive reply, the Court considers Del Cerro’s opposition.
Compliance with Government Tort Claims Act OCTA contends Del Cerro has neither alleged nor can truthfully allege timely compliance with the Government Claims Act or whether Del Cerro was served with Defendant/Cross- Complainant Placentia-Yorba Linda Unified School District’s (“PYLUSD”) cross-complaint on May 13 or May 15, 2024, its claims are procedurally deficient and legally barred
Del Cerro contends that the FAXC adequately pleads compliance with the Government Claims Act as it accurately states that timely claims were filed in January and September 2025, that the date of service of the PYLUSD Cross-Complaint on Del Cerro was incorrectly alleged in the FAXC, that in fact, Del Cerro was served with PYLUSD’s Cross-Complaint