Brown vs. Irvine Public Schools Foundation

the custodian of these documents. Plaintiff has sought to obtain the documents directly from Willkie. Plaintiff contends that there are thousands of non-privileged responsive documents in Wilkie’s possession that have not been produced by either Defendant or Wilkie. Defendant has objected to Plaintiff’s attempts to obtain the documents directly from Wilkie through a third-party subpoena.

It is completely unclear to the court why thousands of nonprivileged responsive documents are being withheld from production. This hearing is CONTINUED so that Plaintiff may also move to compel compliance with the third-party subpoena directed at Wilkie. The Court will set the hearing on the motion to compel compliance with the third-party subpoena for the same date as the continued hearing on this motion.

All counsel and third-party deponent shall all meet and confer in person, by telephone or by video conference regarding whether any potentially non-privileged documents regarding the Business Review and Risk Committee’s investigation of Kiani have yet to be produced. Meet and confer efforts by written correspondence, email or text are not acceptable. No later than 15 days before the continued hearing date, the Parties shall file a joint statement that identifies any remaining disputes regarding the adequacy of Masimo and/or Willkie’s privilege log and/or the production of any yet-to-be produced documents. This joint statement is in addition to any reply briefing that may be filed on that date.

Plaintiff Joe E. Kiani’s Motion to Seal:

Plaintiff Joe E. Kiani’s Motion to Seal is DENIED. Moving Party has failed to identify an overriding interest that overcomes the right of public access to the material Plaintiff seeks to seal. The hourly rates and time spent on a motion to compel are routinely disclosed in the public record in conjunction with motions to compel discovery responses.

Plaintiff shall provide notice of these rulings.

2 Brown vs. Irvine Public Schools Foundation

2025-01474076 Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint

Plaintiff Cheryl Brown’s motion for leave to file a First Amended Complaint is granted. There is a strong policy favoring amendment of pleadings. “The policy favoring amendment is so strong that it is a rare case in which denial of leave to amend can be justified.” City of Torrance v. Southern California Edison Co. (2021) 61 Cal.App.5 th

1071, 1091. This liberal policy applies

particularly with respect to a party’s initial complaint, and “it ordinarily constitutes an abuse of discretion to sustain a demurrer without leave to amend if there is a reasonable possibility that the defect can be cured by amendment.” (Ibid.) The court is not persuaded by