Motion to compel further responses to requests for admission; Motion to compel further PMQ testimony and document production
Santa Barbara County - Judge Thomas Anderle - 20260607 Tentative Ruling: B E vs DOE 1 et al Tentative Ruling: B E vs DOE 1 et al Case Number
Case Type Civil Law & Motion Hearing Date / Time Wed, 04/01/2026 - 10:00 Nature of Proceedings Motion: Compel re FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION (SET ONE) AND FORM INTERROGATORIES (SET TWO) FROM DEFENDANT DOE 1 Tentative Ruling HEARING Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Admission, Set One, and Form Interrogatories, Set Two, Request for Monetary Sanctions ATTORNEYS For Plaintiff B.E.: Michael W. Carney, Veronica Mittino, Magnus Forsythe, Slater Slater Schulman LLP For Defendant Doe 1: Brett Schoel, Kristine Balogh, La Follette Johnson DeHaas Fesler & Ames
For the reasons stated herein, the hearing on plaintiff's motion to compel Doe 1 to provide further responses to plaintiff's requests for admission, further responses to form interrogatories, and for monetary sanctions, is continued to May 13, 2026. The parties shall further meet and confer in accordance with this ruling, either in person, by virtual meeting, or by telephone, and, on or before April 20, 2026, file a joint report or, if necessary, file and serve individual status reports, addressing each of the matters described herein including which, if any, issues remain for determination by the court. B.E. shall file and serve a code-compliant separate statement of discovery items in dispute no later than April 22, 2026. Doe 1 shall file and serve its responsive separate statement, if any, no later than May 6, 2026.
Background
This action commenced on December 2, 2022, by the filing of the complaint by plaintiff B.E. against Doe 1, a Corporation, Doe 2, an individual, and Does 3 through 60 for (1) sexual assault of a minor, (2) intentional infliction of emotional distress, (3) negligent supervision, hiring, and retention, (4) negligent supervision of a minor, (5) failure to report suspected child abuse in violation of Penal Code section 11165, et seq., and (6) negligence. The complaint alleges that B.E. was the victim of childhood sexual assault by Doe 2, while a resident at Doe 1's facility, where Doe 2 was employed, in approximately 1991 when B.E. was approximately 15 years old.
On April 3, 2023, Doe 1 answered the complaint with a general denial and 13 affirmative defenses. On July 16, 2024, B.E. dismissed Doe 2 without prejudice. On August 22, 2025, B.E. served Doe 1 with requests for admission, set one (RFA's), and form interrogatories, set two (FI's). (Forsythe Decl., P. 2 & Exh. A.) On October 1, 2025, Doe 1 served responses to the RFA's and FI's. (Forsythe Decl., P. 3 & Exh. B.) Following attempts to meet and confer, and granting of mutual extensions, B.E. filed the present motion to compel further responses to the RFA's and FI's.
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?”
Doe 1 opposes the motion. Analysis
defense of the party seeking discovery or of any other party to the action. Discovery may be obtained of the identity and location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter, as well as of the existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and location of any document, electronically stored information, tangible thing, or land or other property." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2017.010.) "A trial court must be mindful of the Legislature's preference for discovery over trial by surprise, [and] must construe the facts before it liberally in favor of discovery. . ." (Williams v.
Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 540.) Code of Civil Procedure, section 2033.010 provides, in pertinent part: "Any party may obtain discovery . . . by a written request that any other party to the action admit the genuineness of specified documents, or the truth of specified matters of fact, opinion relating to fact, or application of law to fact. A request for admission may relate to a matter that is in controversy between the parties." "The party to whom requests for admission have been directed shall respond in writing under oath separately to each request.
Each response shall answer the substance of the requested admission or set forth an objection to the particular request." (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 2033.210, subds. (a-b). Although admissions should not be substantively compound, the responding party has an affirmative duty to "admit so much of the matter involved in the request as is true, either as expressed in the request itself or as reasonably and clearly qualified by the responding party." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2033.220, subd. (b)(1).) RFAs "differ fundamentally from other forms of discovery.
Rather than seeking to uncover information, they seek to eliminate the need for proof." (Murillo v. Superior Court (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 730, 735.) Misuses of the discovery process include: "Making, without substantial justification, an unmeritorious objection to discovery" and "Making an evasive response to discovery." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2023.010, subds. (e)(f).) Should the parties not be able to resolve the discovery issues, or at least meaningfully limit them, the court will be inclined to issue monetary sanctions against one or both parties at the continued hearing.
Tentative Ruling: B.E. v. DOE 1, et al Tentative Ruling: B.E. v. DOE 1, et al Case Number
Case Type Civil Law & Motion Hearing Date / Time Wed, 05/13/2026 - 10:00 Nature of Proceedings Motions to Compel (2) Tentative Ruling For Plaintiff B.E.: Simona Danesh, Veronica Mittino, Slater Slater Schulman LLP For Defendant The Devereux Foundation (previously named as Doe 1): Brett Schoel, Kristine Balogh, La Follette, Johnson, DeHaas, Fesler & Ames RULING For all reasons stated herein, on or before May 20, 2026, Defendant The Devereux Foundation (previously named as Doe 1) shall serve verified, supplemental responses to request for admission Nos. 1, 15, 16, 17, 20, 21, 22, and 28.
For all reasons stated herein, on or before May 20, 2026, Defendant The Devereux Foundation shall serve verified, supplemental responses to form interrogatory No. 17.1 as to request for admission Nos. 1, 15 through 17, 20 through 22, and 26 through 31. For all reasons stated herein, on or before May 20, 2026, Defendant The Devereux Foundation shall serve a declaration from a person most knowledgeable (PMQ) as required herein detailing the status of the production of
documents. For all reasons stated herein, on or before May 20, 2026, Defendant The Devereux Foundation shall produce for deposition one or more witnesses sufficient to cover the PMQ topics set forth in the operative deposition notice. PMQ Moraima Alvarez shall be produced for a minimum of two hours, in addition to any other PMQ witnesses needed to cover the PMQ topics. If the parties cannot agree on a date, the parties may appear ex parte and the Court will set one. For all reasons stated herein, the Court awards monetary sanctions against Defendant The Devereux Foundation and its counsel, La Follette, Johnson, DeHaas, Fesler & Ames, in the amount of $4,471.92, payable to counsel for B.E. on or before June 12, 2026, as to the PMQ deposition.
The Court sets these deadlines with the understanding that the motion for summary judgment filed by Defendant The Devereux Foundation is set for hearing on June 10, 2026, and B.E.'s opposition to that motion is due 20 days prior to June 10 (see Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 437c, subd. (b)(2)). The Pretrial at 11:30 am on July 15, 2026, is confirmed; jury selection and the trial begins on 7/16; 7/17; 7/20; 7/21; 7/23; 7/24; 7/27; 7/28; 7/30; 7/31 = 10 days. This case was filed in 12/2023, and the Court does not intend to continue the trial date.
The motions of B.E. at issue in this hearing are denied in all other respects. The Court declines to award further monetary sanctions in favor of either party.
Background
On December 2, 2022, Plaintiff B.E. initiated this action against Defendants Doe 1, Doe 2, and unidentified Doe Defendants 3 through 60, setting forth six causes of action for (1) sexual assault of a minor against Doe 2, (2) intentional infliction of emotional distress against Doe 2, (3) negligent supervision, hiring, and retention against Doe 1 and unidentified Doe Defendants 3 through 20, (4) negligent supervision of a minor against Doe 1 and unidentified Doe Defendants 3 through 60, (5) failure to report suspected child abuse against Doe 1 and unidentified Doe Defendants 3 through 20, and (6) negligence against unidentified Doe Defendants 3 through 60.
As alleged in the complaint: B.E. is an adult male born in 1974. (Compl., P.P. 4-5.) In 1991, Doe 2 committed childhood sexual assault against B.E. when B.E. was 15 years old. (Compl., P.P. 4, 33.) Doe 2 committed the alleged assault on B.E. when B.E. resided at Doe 1's residential facility. (Compl., P. 2.) At that time, Doe 2 was an employee, volunteer, representative, and agent of Doe 1. (Compl., P.P. 28, 33.) Doe 2 was placed in a position where he had access to and worked with children as an integral part of his work for Doe 1, including B.E. (Compl., P. 29.)
At the time of the assault, B.E. was under the custody and control of Defendants. (Compl., P.P. 2, 27.) B.E. was dependent on Doe 1. (Ibid.) Defendants, including Doe 1, had a duty to protect B.E. (Ibid.) Doe 2 used his position with Doe 1 to gain the trust and confidence of children placed under his supervision, and further used Doe 1's facility to commit acts of child abuse. (Compl., P. 29.) B.E. was conditioned by Doe 1 to comply with Doe 2's direction and to respect Doe 2 as a person of authority on all matters. (Compl., P. 32.)
Doe 2's conduct constituted "grooming" of B.E. and culminated in the sexual assault and abuse of B.E. (Ibid.) Doe 2 sexually assaulted, abused, and molested B.E. at Doe 1's facility by fondling B.E.'s genitals and buttocks, and forcing B.E. to perform oral sex on Doe 2, among other acts. (Compl., P. 35.) The unlawful acts of sexual abuse occurred numerous times over a period of approximately one year. (Ibid.) On at least one occasion, Doe 2 directed B.E. to the stockroom at Doe 1's facility, then blocked the door to prevent B.E. from leaving. (Compl., P. 36.)
Doe 2 forced B.E. to perform oral sex. (Ibid.) This lasted for close to one hour, while other supervisory employees and staff were present outside. (Ibid.) Nevertheless, no supervisory employees or staff did anything to see why Doe 2 was alone with B.E. in the stockroom for such an unreasonably long period of time. (Ibid.) The above-described conduct was known or observed by Doe 1 by and through its officers, directors, superintendents, administrators, staff, agents, or employees. (Compl., P. 39.)
Nevertheless, Doe 1 continued to allow Doe 2 to have regular and unsupervised contact with minors entrusted to Doe 1's care, custody, and control. (Ibid.)