RAMIREZ vs ROSS STORES, INC.

25CV154861: RAMIREZ vs ROSS STORES, INC. 06/11/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses filed by MARY RAMIREZ (Plaintiff) CRS# 203812775670 in Department 512

Tentative Ruling - 06/10/2026 Jenna Whitman

The Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses filed by MARY RAMIREZ on 04/17/2026 is Granted in Part.

This Tentative Ruling addresses plaintiff’ Mary Ramirez’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion to Compel defendant Ross Dress for Less, Inc. (“Defendant”) Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents (“RFPD”) Nos. 1, 2, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 16, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 29, 33, and 34.

The parties filed a supplemental joint separate statement on 6/1/2026, pursuant to which they represent that the dispute had resolved regarding RFPD Nos. 9-11, 14, 21-24 and 29.

Wherefore, the Court DENIES as moot Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel with respect to RFPD Nos. 9-11, 14, 21-24 and 29.

The Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant’s verified Further Responses to RFPD Nos. 1, 2, 15, 16, 25, 33 and 34, as set forth below.

Although Defendant’s current responses to RFPD Nos. 1, 2, 15, 16, 25, 33 and 34 remain at issue, the primary remaining dispute appears to be whether four documents identified in Defendant’s 5/6/2026 privilege log as (1) 12/19/2024 General Liability Report prepared by Area Supervisor Justin L. (“Lynch”); (2) 12/19/2024 Incident Report prepared by employee Castro; (3) approx.. 12/19/2024 written statement prepared by employee See; and (4) 12/19/2024 Incident Report – Job Aid prepared by Area Supervisor Lynch, are or are not subject to Defendant’s claims that the documents are shielded from production pursuant to the attorneyclient and attorney work product privileges as documents prepared in anticipation of litigation.

Both parties cite to Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Sup.Ct. (2009) 47 Cal.4th 725 (“Costco”) and D.I. Chadbourne v. Sup. Ct. (1964) 60 Cal.2d 723 (Chadbourne). Costco provides in relevant part at 47 Cal.4th at 734:

“The attorney-client privilege attaches to a confidential communication between the attorney and the client and bars discovery of the communication irrespective of whether it includes unprivileged material.”

“[I]t is the actual fact of the transmission which merits protection, since discovery of the transmission of specific public documents might very well reveal the transmitter's intended strategy.”

Costco described the “dominant-purpose” test set forth in Chadbourne as follows: 25CV154861: RAMIREZ vs ROSS STORES, INC. 06/11/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses filed by MARY RAMIREZ (Plaintiff) CRS# 203812775670 in Department 512

“[T]he dominant-purpose test determines whether the relationship between the attorney and the corporate employee is an attorney-client relationship; if the corporation's dominant purpose in requiring the employee to make a statement is the confidential transmittal to the corporation's attorney of information emanating from the corporation, the communication is privileged.”

“[However,] [k]nowledge which is not otherwise privileged does not become so merely by being communicated to an attorney.” (Id. at 735.)

Chadbourne is more apposite to the present facts than Costco, as Chadbourne also dealt with employee witnesses statements or reports transmitted to the employer’s insurance counsel. Chadbourne at 60 Cal.2d at 736-738 set forth twelve consecutively numbered principles to determine whether the dominant purpose of the employee’s report is to communicate information by the employer to the attorney for the purpose of obtaining legal advice (or in anticipation of litigation), which communication is entitled to attorney-client privilege protection, or the employee is primarily acting as an independent witness who is not speaking for his or her employer.

Under these standards, this Court finds that the primary purpose of the four at-issue documents was to transmit information on behalf of Defendant to counsel in anticipation of litigation. (See 5/11/2026 Lynch, Koenig, Castro and See Declarations.) Chadbourne states in relevant part:

“4. Where the employee's connection with the matter grows out of his employment to the extent that his report or statement is required in the ordinary course of the corporation's business, the employee is no longer an independent witness, and his statement or report is that of the employer;

“5. If, in the case of the employee last mentioned, the employer requires (by standing rule or otherwise) that the employee make a report, the privilege of that report is to be determined by the employer's purpose in requiring the same; that is to say, if the employer directs the making of the report for confidential transmittal to its attorney, the communication may be privileged;

“10. [W]here the corporate employer directs the employee, at the request of its insurance carrier, to make such a statement, the intent of the employer controls; and unless the insurance carrier (or its agent) has advised the employer that the employee's statement is to be obtained and used in such manner, it cannot be said that the corporation intended the statement to be made as a confidential communication from client to attorney[.]” [60 Cal.2d at 736-738.)

Therefore, the Court finds that the four at-issue documents are subject to attorney-client privilege. The Court, therefore, SUSTAINS Defendant’s attorney-client privilege objections to RFPD Nos. 1, 2, 15, 16, 25, 33 and 34.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

25CV154861: RAMIREZ vs ROSS STORES, INC. 06/11/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses filed by MARY RAMIREZ (Plaintiff) CRS# 203812775670 in Department 512

The Court OVERRULES Defendant’s attorney work product Objections. Although it is possible that legal counsel prepared the report forms used by employees Lynch, Castro and See to make their reports and that the form of reports could contain information regarding counsel’s trial preparation, there is no evidence in the record that an attorney drafted the forms or any other evidence to support an attorney work product claim.

The Court OVERRULES all of Defendant’s Objections other than attorney-client privilege as lacking merit.

The Court ORDERS Defendant no later than 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, 7/2/2026 to serve verified further responses to RFPD Nos. 1, 2, 15, 16, 25, 33 and 34 without objections except as to attorney-client privilege. Plaintiff’s request for a further privilege log from Defendant is DENIED. Defendant’s 5/6/2026 privilege log is adequate under the circumstances.

The case law is clear that each of employees Lynch, Castro and See may be deposed regarding their respective percipient witness knowledge of the alleged incident, if any, and that they may also be deposed regarding any investigations of the alleged incident they conducted, including whom they talked with and what those witnesses told them. None of this information is protected by attorney-client privilege; only the specific reports sent to counsel are privileged. (Costco, supra, at 735.) Unlike in Chadbourne, where the witness who produced the relevant report could not be deposed because he was performing military service in Germany (60 Cal.2d at 727), there is no evidence in the record that any of Lynch, Castro or See is unavailable to be deposed in this action.

The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s request for attorneys’ fees in any amount. Defendant was substantially justified in asserting its attorney-client privileged objections, even if Defendant’s other objections lack merit.

CONTESTING TENTATIVE RULINGS

PLEASE NOTE: If any party contests the tentative ruling, the hearing on the motion will occur remotely via the court's own video-conferencing system.

Pursuant to California Rule of Court 3.1308, subdivision (a)(1), this tentative ruling will become the order of the Court unless it is contested before 4:00 PM on the court day preceding the noticed hearing date.

To contest a tentative ruling, a party should do the following:

First, the party must notify Department 512, by email at Dept512@alameda.courts.ca.gov and copy all counsel of record and self-represented parties. The contesting party must state in the subject line of the email the case name, case number and motion.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

25CV154861: RAMIREZ vs ROSS STORES, INC. 06/11/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses filed by MARY RAMIREZ (Plaintiff) CRS# 203812775670 in Department 512

Second, the party shall log into the eCourt Public Portal, search for this case (e.g., by case number), select the case name, select the "Tentative Rulings" tab, click the "Click to Contest this Ruling" button, enter the party's name and a brief statement of the party's reason for contesting the tentative, and click "Proceed."

Parties may appear via videoconference, using the Zoom.com website or application.

TO CONNECT TO ZOOM:

Join the meeting using the following link: https://www.zoomgov.com/j/16057661931 Join the meeting by Phone:

Meeting ID: 160 5766 1931

1 669 254 5252, 16057661931# US (San Jose) 1 669 216 1590, 16057661931# US (San Jose) 833 568 8864 US Toll-free