KARLA CUELLAR VS. WEBCOR CONSTRUCTION, ET AL

June 5, 2026 Law and Motion Calendar PAGE 5 HONORABLE MICHAEL L. MAU, Department 20 ________________________________________________________________________ Defendant opposes, contending that each response complies with the Code and plaintiff’s motion is based purely on speculation. Furthermore, because the motion lacks justification, defendant requests sanctions in the amount of $10,000 for plaintiff’s abuse of the discovery process.

B. Legal Standard

“California’s pretrial discovery procedures are designed to minimize the opportunities for fabrication and forgetfulness, and to eliminate the need for guesswork about the other side's evidence, with all doubts about discoverability resolved in favor of disclosure.” (Glenfed Development Corp. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1119, 62 Cal.Rptr.2d 195.)” (Kirkland v. Superior Court (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 92, 97.) “[T]he discovery statutes vest a wide discretion on the trial court in granting or denying discovery.” (Greyhound Corp. v.

Superior Court In and For Merced County (1961) 56 Cal.2d 355, 378 [superceded by statute].) Code of Civil Procedure, section 2031.010 provides “[a]ny party may obtain discovery within the scope delimited by Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 2017.010), and subject to the restrictions set forth in Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 2019.010), by inspecting, copying, testing, or sampling documents, tangible things, land or other property, and electronically stored information in the possession, custody, or control of any other party to the action.” (Code Civ.

Proc. § 2031.010, subd. (a).)

Unless otherwise limited by order of the court in accordance with this title, any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action or to the determination of any motion made in that action, if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

(Code Civ. Proc., § 2017.010, emphasis added.)

If the demanding party deems the response is inadequate, incomplete or evasive the party may file a motion to compel a further response. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.310, subd. (a).) The Court shall impose a monetary sanction against any party, person or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further response to a demand unless the Court finds the one subject to sanction acted with substantial justification or other circumstances would render imposition of sanction unjust. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.310, subd. (h).)

Once a timely motion to compel has been filed, the burden is on the responding party to justify any objection or failure to fully answer the request. (Coy v. Superior Court of Contra Costa County (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220-221.) To do so, the responding party must affirmatively show that the burden of responding would be so great, and the benefit of the information sought would be so minimal that it would defeat the ends of justice to require the party to answer. (Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Superior Court (1968) 263 Cal.App.2d 12, 19.)

C.

Discussion

RFP No.’s 14, 16, 17 and 49

Plaintiff brings the instant motion currently seeking amended responses to only four of the RFPs, nos. 14,16, 17 and 49 on the grounds that they are “unresponsive to the respective category and fail to state whether documents either exist or cannot be produced.” (Reply p. 2.) Defendant asserts Webcor’s response to each RFP complies with the Code—stating in verified responses either that all responsive

June 5, 2026 Law and Motion Calendar PAGE 6 HONORABLE MICHAEL L. MAU, Department 20 ________________________________________________________________________ documents have been produced or that no responsive documents exist (and, to the best of Webcor’s knowledge, never existed). Thus plaintiff’s belief that the responses “do not seem” to include all the information requested is purely speculative and not an adequate basis for their motion. The RFPs at issue are discussed in detail, infra:

RFP No. 14: “ALL DOCUMENTS, records, reports, statements, or other writings related to any response, corrective actions, or steps YOU took as a result of the findings of any investigation conducted by YOU or anyone acting on YOUR behalf into any complaint or concern or request issued by Plaintiff concerning the subject matter that gave rise to this lawsuit.” (Sep. Stmt. p. 6.) Defendant’s response after its objections: “Webcor will produce all non-privileged, responsive documents in its possession, custody, and control, which relate to the incident alleged in Plaintiff’s Complaint which is the only “complaint or concern” Plaintiff raised to Webcor.

Defendant’s amended response: “Subject to and without in any way waiving the aforementioned objections, and to the extent that it understands this request, Webcor supplements its prior response to add the following: Webcor has produced all responsive, non privileged documents in its possession, custody, or control at WEBCOR_000001 - WEBCOR_000010, WEBCOR_000011- WEBCOR_000034, WEBCOR_000265- WEBCOR_000272, WEBCOR_000429”. (Sep. Stmt. p.6.)

Basis for motion: The additional documents do not seem to be responsive to the request for corrective actions taken by the Defendant nor whether or not they exist. (Reply p.3.) Defense response: Webcor also produced all responsive, non-privileged emails located after a reasonable search and diligent inquiry—and confirmed as much in verified responses. Webcor did not withhold any documents from the investigation except those protected by privilege, for which they are entitled to do. (Sep. Stmt. pp.8-9.)

RFP No. 16: “ALL DOCUMENTS RELATED in any way to any and all investigations YOU or someone acting on YOUR behalf conducted with respect to Pedro Galvan-Martinez.” (Sep. Stmt. p. 9.) Defendant’s response after its objections: “Webcor will produce all responsive, non-privileged documents in its possession, custody, or control.” Defendant’s amended response: “Subject to and without in any way waiving the aforementioned objections, and to the extent that it understands this request, Webcor supplements its prior response to add the following: Webcor has produced all responsive, non-privileged documents in its possession, custody, or control at WEBCOR_000001 - WEBCOR_000010, WEBCOR_000011 WEBCOR_000034, WEBCOR_000265- WEBCOR_000272, WEBCOR_000429.” (Sep. Stmt. 9.)

Basis for motion: The documents identified in the response by the Defendant are the same as those identified in the amended response to Request number 14 and the production does not seem to include the investigation itself, nor a response that indicates whether one exists, or if it was either lost, misplaced, stolen, or destroyed. (Reply p.4.). Defense response: Webcor produced all responsive, non-privileged documents and provided verified written responses confirming as much in response to this RFP, listing the Bates stamps of the relevant produced documents and stating those documents constitute all responsive, non-privileged documents in its possession, custody, or control. Plaintiff suggests Webcor should have produced additional hypothetical investigation documents and emails beyond what was produced. That is purely speculative. (Sep. Stmt. pp.11-12.)

RFP No. 17: “ALL DOCUMENTS RELATED in any way to any and all findings of any investigation YOU or someone acting on YOUR behalf conducted with respect to Pedro Galvan-Martinez.” (Sep. Stmt. p. 12.) Defendant’s response after its objections: “Webcor will produce all responsive, non-privileged documents in its possession, custody, or control.” Defendant’s Amended Response: “Subject to and without in any way waiving the aforementioned objections, and to the extent that it understands this

June 5, 2026 Law and Motion Calendar PAGE 7 HONORABLE MICHAEL L. MAU, Department 20 ________________________________________________________________________ request, Webcor supplements its prior response to add the following: Webcor has produced all responsive, non-privileged documents in its possession, custody, or control at WEBCOR_000001 - WEBCOR_000010, WEBCOR_000011- WEBCOR_000034, WEBCOR_000265- WEBCOR_000272, WEBCOR_000429.” (Sep. Stmt. pp.12-13.)

Basis for motion: This request seeks documents regarding the findings of the investigation and the documents identified in the response were the same as in Request numbers 14 and 16. The Defendant’s production and response does not seem to include or identify documents pertaining to the findings of the investigation, or whether they exists or not. (Reply p.4.) Defendant’s response: Webcor produced all responsive, non-privileged documents and provided verified written responses confirming as much in response to this RFP, listing the Bates stamps of the relevant produced documents and stating those documents constitute all responsive, non-privileged documents in its possession, custody, or control. Plaintiff suggests Webcor should have produced additional hypothetical investigation documents and emails beyond what was produced. That is purely speculative. (Sep. Stmt. pp.15.)

Upon reviewing the responses provided, the Court finds the defendant has sufficiently answered and verified their responses. Plaintiff’s dissatisfaction with the result does not indicate the answers were made in bad faith and remaining questions can be addressed with different forms of discovery or argument. Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion to compel is DENIED on RFP No.’s 14, 16 and 17.

RFP No. 49: “LL schedules for work performed at the SUBJECT PREMISES, including but not limited to Critical Path Method calendars, for the period of sixty (60) days before to sixty (60) days after the SUBJECT INCIDENT.” (Sep. Stmt. pp.22-23.) Defendant’s response after its objections: “Webcor will meet and confer with Plaintiff’s counsel regarding a mutually agreeable narrowing of this request.” Defendant’s Amended Response: “Subject to and without in any way waiving the aforementioned objections, and to the extent that it understands this request, Webcor supplements its prior response to add the following: Webcor has produced lists of supervisors and laborers, including their titles, who were working at the job site between May 27, 2019 and the date of the subject incident at WEBCOR_000273- WEBCOR_000309.” (Sep. Stmt. p. 23.)

Basis for motion: Plaintiff asked if the defense can confirm such, and if they do not exist, supply a revised amended response that indicates whether the work schedules/timesheets exist, or if they were either lost, misplaced, stolen, or destroyed. (Reply p. 5.) Defense response: Webcor has already produced all existing responsive project schedules and time records (WEBCOR_000273–000309 and WEBCOR_000465–000643). Webcor cannot produce non-existent documents. (Sep. Stmt. pp. 24-25.)

Defendant’s original and amended responses to RFP No. 49 are not code-compliant, nor were most of its objections proper. The relevancy objection is overruled. The time-period of plus/minus 60 days is reasonable, thus the objections that the request is “vague, ambiguous, overbroad, unduly burdensome, oppressive, and harassing” (Sep. Stmt. p. 23) are overruled. The objections that the request seeks “confidential and/or proprietary documents and/or information” (Sep. Stmt. p. 23) are overruled. The attorney-client privilege and work product objections were timely and would need to be supported by a privilege log if any documents were so withheld, which is not at- issue in this motion.

While Defendant provided an Amended Response by which it identified and produced responsive records, the amended response was not code-compliant. See, Code of Civ. Proc. Section 2031.220. If Defendant had served a code-compliant response i.e. a statement of compliance and production like it did for RFP No.’s 14, 16 and 17 as analyzed above, then Defendant would be correct that Plaintiff is speculating as to the existence of missing work schedules for July 25-26, 2019. However, Defendant did not do so for RFP No.

49.

June 5, 2026 Law and Motion Calendar PAGE 8 HONORABLE MICHAEL L. MAU, Department 20 ________________________________________________________________________ Thus, the Motion is GRANTED on RFP No. 49, with a code-compliant further amended response to be served within fourteen days.

Sanctions

Because Webcor has repeatedly asked plaintiff to withdraw this motion, defendant requests the Court order reduced sanctions of $10,000 in satisfaction of attorneys’ fees and costs incurred. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.010, subd. (h); Declaration of Sarah L. Reeves iso opposition to motion to compel, ¶¶ 6-8.) Generally, sanctions are mandatory under the statute against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further response to a demand unless the court finds substantial justification for the opposition or other circumstances rendering imposition of a sanction unjust. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.310, subd. (h).)

However, here Plaintiff’s motion is partially successful. Furthermore, this matter proceeded to an Informal Discovery Conference (“IDC”) which should have resolved this entire motion. The Commissioner advised: “If true, the Commissioner would agree that Defendant’s responses are not code compliant and would need revision.” Minute Order, May 6, 2026. Defendant would have been well advised to follow the recommendation of the Commissioner, and in totality, the imposition of sanctions against Plaintiff would therefore be unjust. Therefore, Defendant’s request for sanctions is DENIED.

Any party who contests a tentative ruling must email Dept20@sanmateocourt.org with a copy to all other parties by 4:00 p.m. stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests.

If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court. Thereafter, Counsel for the prevailing party shall prepare for the Court’s signature a written order consistent with the Court’s ruling pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1312 and provide written notice of the ruling to all parties who have appeared in the action, as required by law and by the CRC. Please note that Local Rule 3.403(b)(iv) states in part “prevailing party on a tentative ruling is required to prepare a proposed order REPEATING VERBATIM the tentative ruling” (emphasis added). The order should be filed or e-filed only, do not email or mail a hard copy to the Court.