Ryan Newberry v. Napasport, LLC

The Court finds that Request Nos. 56, 291, 364-367, 372-374, and 376-378, however, contain factual allegations and are not therefore, “pure legal conclusions or citations to statutory standards.”

Finally, Plaintiff argues that “[Request] Nos. 478 through 481 each demand documents supporting Plaintiff’s allegation that she was employed by one of the four defendant entities, a transparent attempt to challenge the joint employer allegations through invasive discovery from Plaintiff rather than through proper dispositive motions.” (Support Memorandum at 7:23-27.) The argument is vague and ambiguous. However, the Court notes that each of the identified Requests seeks documents “that support, refer, and/or relate to YOUR allegation that you were employed directly or jointly by” one of the four Defendants. (See Declaration of Eli Banayan, Exh. A, and p.

91. Italics added.) Based on this language, the Court finds nothing improper with these Requests.

2. Sanctions

“The court shall impose a monetary sanction . . . against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion for a protective order, 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.” (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2017.020, subd. (b), 2019.030, subd. (c), 2031.060, subd. (h).)

As discussed in detail above, the Court finds that the breadth and extent of Defendant’s Requests for Production of Document was driven largely by the length and detail of Plaintiff’s Complaint in the action. As a result, the Court finds that Defendant acted with substantial justification in propounding the Discovery.

Plaintiff’s Request for an award of monetary sanctions is, therefore, DENIED.

**at 9:30 a.m.** Ryan Newberry v. Napasport, LLC 22CV000521

RENEWED MOTION TO DISBURSE THE SETTLEMENT PROCEEDS

TENTATIVE RULING: Good cause appearing, no objections being filed, and the moving party having sufficiently addressed the Court’s previous concerns raised through its September 12, 2025 Minute Order, the motion is GRANTED.

The moving party failed to include in the notice of this motion proper notice of the Court’s tentative ruling system as required by Local Rule 2.9. Moving party is directed to immediately provide, by telephone call AND email, the missing notice to opposing party/ies forthwith. The requirements for requesting oral argument under Local Rule 2.9 remain in effect. However, the Court may grant belated requests for oral argument or continuance of

hearing, made by any party who represents it did not timely receive the required notice, regardless of whether or not moving party is present at the hearing.

9