DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
CGC24613123·sf·Civil·Personal Injury
Hearing 3 months agoGRANTED in part

TERRENCE RILEY VS. SAFEWAY INC. ET AL

Notice Of Motion And Motion For Protective Order Limiting Defendants Written Discovery Requests And Request For Sanctions Against Defendants And Their Attorney Of Record

Hearing date
May 28, 2026
Department
301
Prevailing
Mixed

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Monetary amounts referenced

$500

Parties

PlaintiffTerrence Riley
DefendantSafeway Inc.

Ruling

Set for Law and Motion/Discovery Calendar on Thursday, May 28, 2026, Line 2.

1 - Plaintiff Terrence Riley's motion for protective order limiting written discovery requests is granted in part. This case concerns an encounter between Riley and Safeway security guards that included the guards' demand for Riley to take his dogs outside of the grocery store. (Smith Decl., Ex. A, p. 32.)

Safeway's new discovery concerns whether Riley's dogs were emotional support animals, service animals, are neither. This is a relevant topic. But Safeway's discovery requests are numerous and duplicative; the court concludes they are unduly burdensome in light of the narrow nature of this topic. Safeway shall designate, from the discovery that is at issue on this motion, 25 special interrogatories, 35 requests for admission, and 30 requests for production that Riley will respond to. Riley's responses are due 30 days from Safeway's designation.

Both parties' discovery positions were partially justified. Safeway's failure to respond to Riley's meet and confer letter warrants sanctions. A party is not excused from meeting and conferring because it believes the other party is being unreasonable. (Townsend v. Superior Court (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1431, 1438 ["The Discovery Act makes no exception based upon one's speculation that the prospect of informal resolution may be bleak."].) The court admonishes both parties to pursue informal resolution efforts earnestly and in good faith on future motions. Safeway shall pay $500 to Riley in partial sanctions within 30 days.

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) | |

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…
Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Source

Share