Pawlik v. Dupre

3. 25CV00993, Rhoades v. Girl of the Year, LLC.

Plaintiffs Johnnie Rhoades and Milesa Silva-Rhoades (“Plaintiffs”) move for an order pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300 et seq. to compel Defendants D2760 Santa S, LLC and D3145 Santa N, LLC (“Defendants”) to provide further responses to Plaintiffs’ first sets of special interrogatories, form interrogatories, and requests for admission. If a timely motion to compel has been filed, the burden is on the responding party to justify any objection or failure fully to answer the interrogatories and requests for admissions. (Coy v.

Sup.Ct. (Wolcher) (1962) 58 Cal. 2d 210, 220-221.) On July 7, 2025, Plaintiffs served Defendants with special interrogatories, form interrogatories, and requests for admissions. (Fagan decl., ¶2.) Responses were provided except for responses to Plaintiff’s requests for admissions for defendant D3145 Santa N, LLC. (Ibid.) In opposition, Defendants concede there is no defense to Plaintiffs’ motion. However, they request a continuance of this matter to allow them to provide supplemental responses.

A continuance is not necessary. As Defendants have not justified their responses, the court will GRANT Plaintiffs’ motion. Defendants D2760 Santa S, LLC and D3145 Santa N, LLC are directed to provide further responses to Plaintiffs’ first sets of special interrogatories, form interrogatories, and requests for admission within 30 days of the service of this order. Plaintiffs’ counsel is directed to submit a written order to the court consistent with this ruling and in compliance with Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1312.

4. 25CV04007, Pawlik v. Dupre

I. Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents Plaintiff Christopher Pawlik (“Plaintiff”) moves for an order pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310 to compel Defendant Ernesto Ongaro & Sons, Inc. (“Defendant”) to serve further responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production, Set One. Plaintiff requests sanctions against Defendant and its counsel of record, Christina N. Muñoz, in the amount of $2,260.00.

1. CCP section 2031.310 A motion under section 2031.310 requires the moving party set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310.)

2. Discovery Requests On July 17, 2025, Plaintiff served his first set requests for production on Defendant. (Kayne decl., ¶5.) The request seeks 21 categories of document production. (Id., Exhibit A.) This motion deals with Request Numbers 1, 3, 5, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 20, and 21. a. Request for Production, Numbers 1, 3 Plaintiff’s Request Number 1 seeks: “Any and all film and/or video footage in YOUR possession, custody, or control (or in the possession, custody, or control of YOUR agents) of Plaintiff Christopher Pawlik at any time.”

Request Number 3 seeks: “Any and all photographs in YOUR possession, custody, or control (or in the possession, custody, or control of YOUR agents) of Plaintiff Christopher Pawlik at any time.” Subject to various objections, Defendant responded it would produce all non-privileged films and/or video responsive to the request. Defendant identified surveillance footage as privileged 5

based upon the work product doctrine. In opposition, Defendant argues that materials responsive to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of Documents 1-3 were obtained by Defendant’s agent, a private investigator, to evaluate and investigate Plaintiff’s claims and are privileged. Defendant argues the surveillance video was obtained at the direction of counsel and reflect counsel’s thoughts, impressions, and strategy of defense. It is not clear how surveillance video would contain counsel’s thoughts, impressions, and defense strategy.

This is the exact scenario discussed in Suezaki v. Superior Court of Santa Clara County (1962) 58 Cal.2d 166, in which the appellate court determined the attorney’s private investigator’s surveillance video was not privileged. (Id., at pp. 177-178.) While Suezaki was decided prior to the current iteration of the statute outlying the work product privilege, the Suezaki court determined work product representing an attorney or the attorney’s agent’s impressions was not represented by surveillance video: “The films are not a graphic representation of the defendants, their activities, their mental impressions, anything within their knowledge, or of anything owned by them.

The films are representations of the plaintiff, not of the defendants.” (Suezaki, supra, at p. 177.) Rodriguez v. McDonnell Douglas Corp. (1978) 87 Cal.App.3d 626 does not require a different outcome. In that case, the attorney’s agent’s notes consisted of the agent’s own comments about a witness’s statement, which is protected from disclosure by the attorney's work-product privilege as a “writing that reflects an attorney's [or attorney's agent's] impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal research or theories.” (Id., at p. 648.)

Here, the surveillance video and photos are not privileged. However, any notes of the attorney or the attorney’s agent’s impressions of what is seen on the video or photos are privileged. In addition, there is a need for the surveillance video and photographs both in order to protect against surprise, and in order to prepare for examination of the person who took the pictures. (Suezaki v. Superior Court of Santa Clara County, supra, 58 Cal.2d at p. 172.) Defendant’s intended use of the material to impeach Plaintiff does not strip the evidence of its discoverability.

These requests are relevant and reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The material is not privileged. Therefore, the motion as to these requests is granted. b. Request for Production, Number 5 Request Number 5 seeks: “All DOCUMENTS which refer or relate to any and all repair, maintenance, or service of YOUR vehicle.” In response to this request, Defendant stated it made a diligent search and identified certain bates stamped evidence. Plaintiff argues a further response is required because a statement of inability to comply requires further explanation.

However, Defendant did not state in its responses that it was unable to comply. The motion as to this request is denied. c. Request for Production, Numbers 11, 12, 13 Request Number 11 seeks: “Any and all photographs or digital and/or video recordings of the SUBJECT VEHICLE.” Request Number 12 seeks: “Any and all photographs or digital and/or video recordings of the scene of the INCIDENT.” Request Number 13 seeks: “Any and all photographs or digital and/or video recordings of the Tesla Plaintiff was driving at the time of the INCIDENT.”

In response to these objections, Defendant indicated it would comply and produce responsive documents. It also noted it was otherwise not able to comply as it was not aware of the existence of additional responsive documents. The responses are vague as it is unclear whether the inability to comply is because the particular item or category has never existed; has been destroyed; has been lost, misplaced, or

stolen; or has never been, or is no longer, in the possession, custody, or control of the responding party as required by CCP § 2031.230. The motion as to these requests is granted. d. Request for Production, Numbers 15, 16, 17 Request Number 15 seeks: “Any and all DOCUMENTS that evidence any act on the part of Plaintiff Christopher Pawlik that YOU allege caused the INCIDENT or contributed to any injuries sustained by Plaintiff Christopher Pawlik arising from the INCIDENT.” Request Number 16 seeks: “Any and all DOCUMENTS that evidence an omission on the part of Plaintiff Christopher Pawlik that YOU allege caused the INCIDENT or contributed to any injuries arising from the INCIDENT.”

Request Number 17 seeks: “Any and all DOCUMENTS that evidence any defect in any vehicle which YOU allege caused and/or contributed to the happening of this INCIDENT.” After various objections, Defendant responded: “Responding Party is a lay witness and will defer to defense experts and the trier-of-fact to opine on causation.” This discovery request seeks documents that support Defendant’s contentions regarding whether Plaintiff caused or contributed to the incident—information that is directly relevant to the subject matter of this action.

Responding to Plaintiff’s requests does not require expert opinion. Plaintiff is merely seeking the evidence Defendant plans to rely upon to defend against Plaintiff’s case In opposition, Defendant maintains that as a lay witness, it does not have the legal training nor sophistication to make legal conclusions as required by the Requests for Production that correspond with Plaintiff’s contention interrogatories. However, in a good-faith effort to narrow down the scope of issues presented before this Court, Defendant states its intention to serve a second set of further amended responses clarifying Defendant’s position in response to Plaintiff’s contention interrogatories and to produce any corresponding documents in support of thereof.

In reply, Plaintiff indicates no further responses have yet been served. The motion as to these requests is granted. e. Request for Production, Number 20 Request Number 20 seeks: “Any and all downloads and/or printouts reflecting data from the Event Data Recorder (“EDR”) and/or the black box present in any vehicle involved in the INCIDENT.” Defendant responded identifying a document and stating it would produce that document. However, in opposition, Defendant states its counsel indicated to Plaintiff’s counsel that it would not produce the data because it was equally available to Plaintiff. (Munoz decl., ¶13.)

In an email sent by Defendant’s counsel on October 22, 2025, Plaintiff’s counsel wrote: “Request for Production Nos. 20, 21- EDR data. We agreed to table this issue. I will review our files and get back to you as to whether we still require a response.” (Munoz decl., ¶14, Exhibit D.) Defendant argues this issue is moot. In reply, Plaintiff’s counsel provides an email dated November 20, 2025, recapping counsel’s discussion. With respect to request for production number 20, it states: “You agreed to produce data downloaded on Defendant’s behalf from the vehicles in this case.” (Kayne reply decl., Exhibit I.)

The motion as to this request is granted. f. Request for Production, Number 21 This request seeks: “Any and all component parts of vehicle involved in the INCIDENT.” Defendant responded it had shipped responsive components to Plaintiff’s attorney’s office. Plaintiff’s motion indicates that one component was removed from the vehicle which was not turned over. In opposition, Defendant states that after meet and confer efforts that took place in October, the component was turned over in November. The motion as to this request is denied. 7

g. Privilege Log In reply, Plaintiff states that the amended privilege log served by Defendant on December 9, 2025, is deficient as it fails to state the author and recipient of the document or material, or the date of the material’s creation. If the response and any privilege log fail to provide sufficient information to allow the trial court to rule on the merits, the court may order the responding party to provide a further response by serving a privilege log or, if one already has been served, a supplemental privilege log that adequately identifies each document the responding party claims is privileged and the factual basis for the privilege claim. (Catalina Island Yacht Club v. Superior Court (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 1116, 1127.) Defendant’s privilege log only lists the surveillance video and photos. (Plaintiff’s Exhibit O.) As determined above, these must be produced.

3. Sanctions “[T]he court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further response to a demand, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (CCP § 2031.310(h).) In addition, the court may impose sanctions against anyone “engaging in conduct that is a misuse of the discovery process.” (CCP § 2023.030.) “Misuses of the discovery process include, but are not limited to...(e) Making, without substantial justification, an unmeritorious objection to discovery...(f) Making an evasive response to discovery...(h) Making or opposing, unsuccessfully and without substantial justification, a motion to compel or to limit discovery.” (CCP § 2023.010.)

Plaintiff seeks sanctions against Defendant and its counsel of record, Chirstina N. Muñoz, in the amount of $2,260. Plaintiff’s counsel states he spent 3.5 hours in pursuit of this matter: “research for this motion, and drafting of this motion, including the notice and memorandum of points and authorities, supporting declaration, separate statement and proposed order, and identification and compilation of exhibits for the motion.” (Kayne decl., ¶16.) He has been practicing law for 10 years and states his hourly rate is $400. (Ibid.)

He anticipated spending an additional 2 hours drafting the reply. (Ibid.) While the reply declaration does not state two hours were spent, two hours is a reasonable amount of time for the reply that was filed. Sanctions are granted against Defendant and its counsel of record, Christina N. Muñoz in the amount of $2,260.

4. Conclusion and Order Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED as follows. Defendant is directed to provide further responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents, Numbers 1, 3, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, and 20, and to pay sanctions in the amount of $2,260, as against Defendant and its counsel of record Christina N. Muñoz, within 30 days of the service of this order. Plaintiff has not met his burden to show further responses are required for Request for Production numbers 5 and 21. Plaintiff’s counsel is directed to submit a written order to the court consistent with this ruling and in compliance with Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1312.

II. Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form and Special Interrogatories Plaintiff Christopher Pawlik (“Plaintiff”) moves pursuant to CCP section 2030.290 and 2030.300 et seq. for an order compelling Defendant Ernest Ongaro and Sons, Inc. to provide further responses to Plaintiff’s form interrogatories, set one, and special interrogatories. Plaintiff requests

sanctions in the amount of $4,060.00 against Defendant and Defendant’s counsel, Christina N. Muñoz. If a timely motion to compel has been filed, the burden is on the responding party to justify any objection or failure fully to answer the interrogatories. (Coy v. Sup.Ct. (Wolcher) (1962) 58 Cal. 2d 210, 220-221.) On July 17, 2025, Plaintiff served Form Interrogatories, Set One, and Special Interrogatories, Set One, on Defendant Ernest Ongaro and Sons, Inc. (Kayne Decl., ¶ 5, Exhibits A, B) This motion was filed on November 20, 2025.

Counsel continued to meet and confer regarding Plaintiff’s discovery requests. Subsequent to filing this motion, Defendant provided amended responses. From the responses provided, it appears that Defendant fully responded to Form Interrogatory numbers 13.1, 13.2. In reply, Plaintiff states that Defendant has still not provided code-compliant responses to Form Interrogatory 14.1 and Special Interrogatories 2 through 17 and 36 through 39. a. Form Interrogatory Number 14.1 In opposition, Defendant argues it fully responded but states it will provide an amended response. b.

Special Interrogatories 2-17, 36-39 Defendant maintains that as a lay witness, it does not have the legal training nor sophistication to make legal conclusions as required by Special Interrogatories 2 through 17 and 36 through 39. Despite this, it states in a good faith effort to narrow down the scope of issues presented, Defendant intends to serve a second set of further amended responses, clarifying its position as it relates to Special Interrogatories 2 through 17 and 36 through 39. c. Sanctions Defendant has not justified the objections.

Therefore, sanctions are appropriate. Plaintiff seeks $4,060.00 against Defendant and its counsel of record, Christina N. Muñoz. Plaintiff’s counsel states he has expended approximately 6 hours in pursuit of this matter, including research for and preparation of the meet and confer letter, the meet-and-confer call with defense counsel, follow-up emails to defense counsel, research for this motion, and drafting of this motion, including the notice and memorandum of points and authorities, supporting declaration, separate statement and proposed order, and identification and compilation of exhibits for the motion. (Kayne decl., ¶15.)

He anticipates another 4 hours for the reply. (Ibid.) Based upon Defendant’s concessions in opposition, and significant overlap with Plaintiff’s counsel’s meet and confer efforts and the reply for the motion to compel requests for production, this court finds sanctions in the amount of $2,860 are reasonable against Defendant and its counsel of record. d. Conclusion and Order The motion is GRANTED as follows. Defendant is directed to provide further responses to Plaintiff’s form interrogatory, number 14.1, and special interrogatories, numbers 2 through 17 and 36 through 39, and to pay sanctions as against Defendant and Christina N.

Muñoz in the amount of $2,860 within 30 days of the service of this order. Plaintiff’s counsel is directed to submit a written order to the court consistent with this ruling and in compliance with Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1312.

5. 25CV07912, Jussila v. AAA Insurance Company

Defendant American Automobile Association, Northern California, Nevada & Utah (“AAA”) moves for an order quashing the purported service of summons and complaint by Plaintiffs John Jussila and Linda Jussila (“Plaintiffs”). 9