MOLLINS vs RELIANCE, INC., et al.

A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.

Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver

24CV014460: MOLLINS vs RELIANCE, INC., et al. 06/17/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One from Reliance, Inc. in Department 8D

and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

***NOTICE: EFFECTIVE APRIL 13, 2026, THIS DEPARTMENT HAS MOVED TO THE TANI G. CANTIL-SAKAUYE COURTHOUSE LOCATED AT 500 G. ST. SACRAMENTO, CA. ALL MOTIONS NOTICED FOR DEPARTMENT 25 WILL BE HEARD IN DEPARTMENT 8D OF THE NEW COURTHOUSE. ALL PAPERS FOR THIS DEPARTMENT MUST BE FILED AT THIS NEW LOCATION AND WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED AT THE HALL OF JUSTICE OR GORDON D. SCHABER COURTHOUSE. ALL HEARINGS WILL TAKE PLACE AT THIS NEW LOCATION.***

Plaintiff’s Notice of Motion stated the procedure for the Court’s Presiding Judge calendar tentative ruling system pursuant to Local Rule 1.05. The Court’s Law & Motion Departments use the procedures in Local Rule 1.06, which differs from those in Rule 1.05. Moving counsel is directed to contact opposing counsel immediately and advise of Local Rule 1.06 and the appropriate tentative ruling procedure and manner to request a hearing. If moving counsel is unable to contact opposing counsel prior to the hearing, moving counsel is ordered to appear at the hearing in person, by Zoom or by telephone in the event opposing counsel appears without following the procedures set forth in Local Rule 1.06(B).

Opposing counsel is admonished for failing to comply with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1119(f)(4), which provides, “electronic exhibits must include electronic bookmarks with links to the first page of each exhibit and with bookmark titles that identify the exhibit number or letter and briefly describe the exhibit.” Failure to comply with these requirements in the future may result in papers not being considered, matters being continued so that papers may be submitted in the proper format, and/or the imposition of sanctions.

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiffs Ryan Mollins and Talia Mollins’s (“Plaintiffs”) motion to compel Defendant Reliance, Inc.’s (“Defendant”) further responses to requests for production of documents is ruled upon as follows.

This case arises out of Plaintiff Ryan Mollins’s employment with Defendants Reliance, Inc. and American Metals Corporation. Plaintiffs allege in their Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”) causes of action for: (1) defamation; (2) violation of Labor Code

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV014460: MOLLINS vs RELIANCE, INC., et al. 06/17/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One from Reliance, Inc. in Department 8D

section 1050, et seq.; (3) violation of Labor Code section 1102.5; (4) violation of Labor Code sections 6310 and 6311; (5) wrongful termination; and (6) loss of consortium. On June 6, 2025, the Loss of Consortium Cause of Action as to Defendant Karla Lewis was dismissed.

Plaintiffs propounded their Requests for Production (“RFPDs”), Set One, on December 5, 2024. (Brouwer Decl., ¶ 4.). At issue in this motion is RFPD No. 5:

Please produce all DOCUMENTS PERTAINING TO any investigation of PLAINTIFF Ryan Mollins during and after employment by YOU.

(Separate Statement.[1]) Defendant responded initially on May 14, 2025, objecting to the RFPD on the basis of attorney-client privilege and attorney work product protection, among others:

Defendant incorporates its Preliminary Statement and General Objections above, as though fully set forth herein. Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overbroad, vague and ambiguous, including as to “PERTAINING TO” and “investigation.” Defendant objects to this request which seeks the production of “all” documents as overbroad and unduly burdensome where a reasonable quantity of documents would suffice to show the pertinent information. Defendant objects on the grounds that this request seeks information that is not in the possession, custody or control of Defendant.

Defendant further objects to this request to the extent that it seeks information protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product doctrine, or any other applicable privilege, immunity, or doctrine. Defendant objects on the grounds that the request seeks sensitive and confidential business information. Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that Plaintiff Ryan Mollins was never employed by Defendant. Defendant objects on the grounds that discovery is ongoing, and as such, reserves the right to supplement its response as additional facts and/or documents are discovered.

(Brouwer Decl., ¶ 8; Separate Statement.) Defendant followed up with a privilege log on September 6, 2025. (Brouwer Decl., ¶ 11.) On November 5, 2025, Defendant served a supplemental response and privilege log:

Defendant incorporates by reference the Preliminary Statement, General Objections, and its specific objections to this Request set forth above as though fully set forth herein. Subject to and notwithstanding the foregoing objections, Defendant supplements its response as follows: Defendant

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV014460: MOLLINS vs RELIANCE, INC., et al. 06/17/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One from Reliance, Inc. in Department 8D

was never Plaintiff Ryan Mollins’ employer. After a diligent search and reasonable inquiry, Defendant has identified responsive documents concerning Plaintiff’s employment by AMC that are being withheld or redacted on the basis of attorney-client privilege and/or work product protection. Pursuant to C.C.P. § 2031.240 and the proposed ESI Protocol circulated on August 1, 2025, Defendant has produced a privilege log identifying such documents. Defendant reserves the right to supplement this response and production as additional responsive, non-privileged documents are located or become available.

(Separate Statement; Brouwer Decl., ¶¶ 14, 15.) Defendant has further amended its privilege log but has not further supplemented the response to RFPD No. 5. (Brouwer Decl., ¶¶ 25, 26; Exh. R [“Privilege Log”].)

Plaintiffs now ask the Court to compel a further response because of non-compliance with the Civil Discovery Act and on the basis that Defendant has waived any privilege by putting the investigations at issue in this case. (Separate Statement, at p. 3:8–15; Memo. of Points & Authorities [“MPA”], at pp. 14–16.) Defendant opposes the motion, arguing that the discovery request demands protected materials that it has not put at issue.[2] (Opp., at pp. 10–13.)

Compliance with Civil Discovery Act

When a party objects to a demand for production, the response shall “identify with particularity any document or electronically stored information falling within any category of item in the demand to which an objection is being made. (Id., § 2031.240, subd. (b)(1).) Objections based on privilege or work product must be supported by “sufficient factual information for other parties to evaluate the merits of that claim, including, if necessary, a privilege log.” (Id., § 2031.240, subd. (c)(1).) A party may move for an order compelling further responses to a demand for production if the party deems objections to be without merit or too general. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310.)

Defendant properly raised its objections by stating in its response to RFPD No. 5 that it was withholding or redacting in responsive documents “on the basis of attorney-client privilege and/or work product protection.” (Separate Statement.) Defendant prepared and served a privilege log that asserts the particular privilege and states whether the document is withheld or produced with redactions. (Privilege Log.)

Plaintiffs argue that Defendant’s response is deficient because the response does not connect the privilege log to the specific RFPD number each item is responsive too. (Separate Statement, at p. 3:12–15.) The Court agrees. It is not clear whether the

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV014460: MOLLINS vs RELIANCE, INC., et al. 06/17/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One from Reliance, Inc. in Department 8D

privilege log is limited to those documents responsive to RFPD No. 5 only or to other or several RFPDs.

The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion to the extent that Defendant shall specifically connect each entry in its privilege log to one or more of Plaintiffs’ discovery requests.

Waiver of Privilege

An attorney’s work product is either absolutely or qualifiedly privileged from discovery. (Id., § 2018.030.) Confidential communications between a client and lawyer are also privileged from discovery. (Evid. Code, § 954.) An attorney’s notes or documents related to a workplace investigation are protected work product. (Coito v. Super. Ct. (2012) 54 Cal.4th 480, 486.)

Plaintiffs argue that Defendant has waived any privilege or protection by putting the investigations at issue, relying on Wellpoint Health Networks, Inc. v. Super. Ct. (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 110. (MPA, at pp. 14–15.) In Wellpoint, an employer hired outside counsel to perform an investigation in response to an employee’s initial complaints of workplace discrimination. (Id. at pp. 116–117.) Some months later, the employer fired the employee. (Ibid.) In the resulting lawsuit, the Court held that the employer may have waived its privileges when it alleged as part of its defense that it “had no knowledge” of discrimination or retaliation and that it had taken “all reasonable steps to prevent any alleged discrimination and/or retaliation once [they] were made aware of plaintiff’s complaints.” (Id. at pp. 115–116, 128.)

Plaintiffs contend that Defendant’s Answer puts any investigation at issue because the Answer admits that an investigation occurred before Ryan Mollins was fired and that it is Defendant’s general practice to perform investigations. (MPA, at p. 15:9–25.) According to Plaintiffs, the only “legitimate, non-retaliatory rationale for terminating Mollins was that it conducted an investigation and determined he was guilty of unprofessional conduct.” (Id. at p. 15:26–27.)

Defendant admits that it performed at least two investigations related to Plaintiff Ryan Mollins’s firing on July 20, 2023. Defendant’s in-house legal department began an investigation on or around July 10, 2023 (“internal investigation”). (McBride Decl., ¶ 4.) Defendant declares that this investigation was “for the purposes of gathering facts necessary to provide legal advice to Reliance concerning the complaint, Mr. Mollins’ employment, potential employment action, and related legal issues.” (Ibid.)

Defendant also hired outside counsel to perform an investigation (“outside investigation”). (McBride Decl., ¶ 6.) The outside investigation began on July 12, 2023,

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV014460: MOLLINS vs RELIANCE, INC., et al. 06/17/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One from Reliance, Inc. in Department 8D

and concluded on August 2, 2023. (Id., ¶¶ 6–9.) The purpose was to assist in-house counsel in “provid[ing] legal advice to Reliance concerning the complaint, Mr. Mollins’ employment, potential employment action, and related legal issues.” (Id., ¶ 6.) The outside investigation interviewed witnesses on or around July 24 and 25, 2023. (Id., ¶ 7.)

First, the Court finds that Defendant through its objections, privilege log, and declarations has stated a prima facie case of attorney-client privilege and work-product protection. (City of Petaluma v. Super. Ct. (2016) 248 Cal.App.4th 1023, 1032.) This shifts the burden of proof to Plaintiff to establish waiver or some other reason that the privilege does not apply. (Ibid.)

The Court finds Wellpoint distinguishable because the adequacy of Defendant’s investigations is not at issue. “The adequacy or thoroughness of a defendant’s investigation of plaintiff’s claim is simply irrelevant in the typical civil action.” (Wellpoint, supra 59 Cal.App.4th at p. 126 [emphasis added].) Defendant argues that it may rely on the underlying facts found through the investigation. (Opp., at 13:14.) This is separate from the adequacy of the investigation itself.

None of Plaintiffs’ causes of action depend on the adequacy of an investigation. Plaintiffs causes of action are generally based on alleged defamation (causes of action One and Two) and retaliation (causes of action Three, Four, and Five). In none of these claims is “the adequacy of the employer's investigation of the employee's initial complaints a critical issue if the employer chooses to defend by establishing that it took reasonable corrective or remedial action.” (Wellpoint, supra, 59 Cal.App.4th at p. 126.) Even if Plaintiffs are correct that the only legitimate basis Defendant can assert for Ryan Mollins’s firing is facts found through Defendant’s investigation, that does not put the adequacy of the investigation at issue. Plaintiff must grapple with the facts, not the investigation.[3]

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s investigation was reckless (TAC, ¶ 81), and Defendant denied that their investigation was reckless (Answer, ¶ 81). Simply by responding to Plaintiff’s allegations, Defendant did not put the adequacy of its investigation at issue within the meaning of Wellpoint. “[T]he employer’s injection into the lawsuit of an issue concerning the adequacy of the investigation must result in waiver.” (Wellpoint, supra, 59 Cal.App.4th at p. 128 [emphasis added].) Defendant is the party who must waive its privilege; the Plaintiff cannot put the issue into play.

The Court finds that Defendant has not waived privilege by putting the investigations at issue. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further response to RFPD No. 5 on the grounds of waiver of attorney-client privilege or work product

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV014460: MOLLINS vs RELIANCE, INC., et al. 06/17/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One from Reliance, Inc. in Department 8D

protection.

Disposition

To the limited extent stated, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further response to RFPD No.

5. The Court otherwise DENIES Plaintiffs’ motion. Defendant shall serve a further response no later than July 17, 2026.

Neither party sought monetary sanctions, and none are awarded.

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1019.5; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1312.)

[1] “Separate Statement” in this Order refers to Plaintiffs’ filing. Defendant filed a

Separate Statement with its opposition papers. No statute or court rule authorizes such a filing. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345.) [2] Based on Defendant’s arguments, the Court understands Defendant to have

abandoned its objections to RFPD No. 5 other than attorney-client and/or attorney work product protection. [3] Defendant states that it is willing to produce the factual investigation materials

responsive to the request. (Opp., at pp. 14–15.)