FIRESTONE vs COLISEUM ENTERPRISES, LLC, et al.

24CV066691: FIRESTONE vs COLISEUM ENTERPRISES, LLC, et al. 06/11/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses filed by Rebecca Firestone (Plaintiff) CRS# 024125823096 in Department 518

Tentative Ruling - 06/10/2026 Mark Fickes

The parties request for a continuance is granted since progress is being made per the Joint Status Conference.

Background

On July 25, 2025, Defendants Seth Jacobson and Coliseum Enterprises, Inc., separately, served responses to Plaintiff Rebecca Firestone discovery requests including Form Interrogatories, Requests for Admission (Set One), and Requests for Production (Set One).

Plaintiff Rebecca Firestone found the responses to be incomplete and sent deficiency letters via email on August 13, 2025. (Sanchez Declarations, ex. A.) On August 22, 2025, Defendants responded requesting additional time to supplement responses, and, via continued email communication, the deadline for supplemental responses was extended to October 3, 2025. (Id.) Defendants failed to serve supplemental responses.

On October 24, 2025, Plaintiff Rebecca Firestone filed six motions to compel further discovery responses, requesting sanctions of $1810.00 per motion. Defendants oppose largely claiming that they cannot supplement responses further as their agents, who are also defendants in this action (though they have not appeared), have not responded to requests for information.

Jury trial is currently scheduled for October 5, 2026.

Discussion

The Court finds Plaintiff’s meet and confer efforts deficient. (Townsend v. Super. Ct. (EMC Mort. Co.) (1998) 61 Cal. App. 4th 1431, 1439 (“A reasonable and good-faith attempt at informal resolution entails something more than bickering with deponent’s counsel at a deposition. Rather, the law requires that counsel attempt to talk the matter over, compare their views, consult, and deliberate.”); see also Obregon v. Super. Ct. (Cimm’s, Inc.) (1998) 67 Cal. App. 4th 424, 430–35 (detailing factors for courts to consider in determining adequacy of meet and confer efforts); Loc. R. 3.31 (stating that “discovery meet and confer obligations require an in-person, telephonic, or video conference between parties”.)

Without determining any issues raised in the motion papers, the court provides the following observations or inclinations which may help guide the parties in their meet and confer efforts. The Court does not intend to limit discovery discussions to these issues alone. 24CV066691: FIRESTONE vs COLISEUM ENTERPRISES, LLC, et al. 06/11/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses filed by Rebecca Firestone (Plaintiff) CRS# 024125823096 in Department 518 The Court notes that Defendants have a duty to reach out to their agents and gather responsive information as is reasonable, and so note the efforts made in their discovery responses, if information cannot be obtained.

Also, if the responding party claims the duty to respond is burdensome, they should explain in detail why and be prepared to offer supporting evidence of the undue burden. Conclusory objections alone carry little weight.

Further, it is unclear to the Court whether the term “INCIDENT” is defined in the discovery requests. Thus, the parties are encouraged to discuss any lack of clarity regarding that and any other terms.

Orders

The motions are continued to be held on August 4, 2026, at 2:30 p.m.

The parties must meet and confer either in person or by telephone or video conference (in order of preference)—on more than one occasion if necessary—to discuss Plaintiff’s issues with Defendants’ responses to the interrogatories, requests for admission, and requests for production of documents, and to narrow their discovery dispute as much as reasonably possible.

If the parties resolve their discovery dispute, Moving Party for each motion must promptly notify the Court no later than July 27, 2026.

If the parties are unable to resolve their discovery dispute, the parties must file a joint separate statement, or two (one for each defendant) if desired, no later than July 27, 2026, briefly describing the parties’ further meet and confer efforts, Plaintiff’s arguments as to why a further response is merited, and Defendants’ responses. The joint separate statement must not exceed 20 pages, excluding the caption page.

----

The Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses filed by Rebecca Firestone (Plaintiff) CRS# 024125823096 scheduled for 12/23/2025 is continued to 08/04/2026 at 02:30 PM in Department 518 at Hayward Hall of Justice.

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

TO CONNECT TO ZOOM: Department 518 is inviting you to a scheduled ZoomGov meeting.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

24CV066691: FIRESTONE vs COLISEUM ENTERPRISES, LLC, et al. 06/11/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses filed by Rebecca Firestone (Plaintiff) CRS# 024125823096 in Department 518 Topic: Department 518's Personal Meeting Room

Join ZoomGov Meeting https://alameda-courts-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16054307984

Meeting ID: 160 5430 7984

One tap mobile +16692545252,,16054307984# US (San Jose) +14154494000,,16054307984# US (US Spanish Line)

---

Dial by your location • +1 669 254 5252 US (San Jose)