Louie Carnevale Family Trust Dated April 15, 2022 vs Ramsey Asphalt Construction Corp

2031.210, subd. (a).) Code of Civil Procedure, section 2031.240, provides: "(a) If only part of an item or category of item in a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is objectionable, the response shall contain a statement of compliance, or a representation of inability to comply with respect to the remainder of that item or category. "(b) If the responding party objects to the demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling of an item or category of item, the response shall do both of the following: "(1) Identify with particularity any document, tangible thing, land, or electronically stored information falling within any category of item in the demand to which an objection is being made. "(2) Set forth clearly the extent of, and the specific ground for, the objection.

If an objection is based on a claim of privilege, the particular privilege invoked shall be stated. If an objection is based on a claim that the information sought is protected work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010), that claim shall be expressly asserted. "(c)(1) If an objection is based on a claim of privilege or a claim that the information sought is protected work product, the response shall provide sufficient factual information for other parties to evaluate the merits of that claim, including, if necessary, a privilege log. "(2) It is the intent of the Legislature to codify the concept of a privilege log as that term is used in California case law.

Nothing in this subdivision shall be construed to constitute a substantive change in case law."

A motion to compel further responses to a demand for production of documents must "set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2031.310, subd. (b)(1); Kirkland v. Superior Court (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 92, 98.) "[U]nless there is a legitimate privilege issue or claim of attorney work product, [the] burden [of showing good cause for the request] is met simply by a fact-specific showing of relevance." (TBG Ins. Services Corp. v. Superior Court (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 443, 448; see also Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2017.010.)

RFPD No. 21 requests: "Every WRITING, as that term is defined in Evidence Code Sec. 250, which is a communication, in whole or in part, between you and Ann Marie Plane concerning, or having any relation to, the claims you are making in this case, including, but not limited to, your feelings about Edward Bookin and the psychological damages you have suffered from the misconduct of which you accuse Eric Torbet."

Plaintiff's initial response was: "Objection. This request is premature, vague, ambiguous, compound, overbroad, and calls for information protected by the litigation privilege, the right to privacy of Plaintiff and third parties, the attorney work product doctrine and/or the attorney client privilege, the common interest doctrine, and Evidence Code sections 912(d) and 952."

Following the filing of the present motion, Plaintiff served a further response as follows: "Without waiving her objections, Plaintiff will produce all responsive documents in her possession, custody, and/or control." Because Plaintiff has represented that she will produce all responsive documents, she will be ordered to do so.

RFPD No. 22 requests: "Every WRITING, as that term is defined in Evidence Code Sec. 250, which is a communication, in whole or in part, between Ann Marie Plane and the Nye, Stirling law firm, including, but not limited to, one Timothy C. Hale, concerning, or having any relation to, the claims you are making in this case."

Plaintiff responded: "Objection. This request is premature, vague, ambiguous, compound, overbroad, and calls for information protected by the litigation privilege, the right to privacy of Plaintiff and third parties, the attorney work product doctrine, the attorney client privilege, the common interest doctrine, and Evidence Code sections 912(d) and 952."

Torbet argues that there is no attorney client privilege between Plane and Plaintiff's counsel. However, Torbet makes no attempt to show good cause justifying discovery of communications between Plaintiff's guardian ad litem and Plaintiff's attorney. Further, despite Torbet's argument to the contrary, communications between the guardian ad litem and Plaintiff's attorney are privileged pursuant to Evidence Code section 954, subdivision (b) and Evidence Code section 953, subdivision (b)(1). Plaintiff will not be ordered to provide a further response.

Attorney Hugo Torbet's Continued Lack of Civility and Professionalism:

Torbet's attorney was previously admonished regarding his personal attacks against Plaintiff's attorney and was ordered to refrain from doing so. On December 17, 2025, the Court reminded attorney Hugo Torbet: " ' "Personal attacks on opposing counsel are improper and irrelevant to the issues." ' " [Citations.]" (People v. Woodruff (2018) 5 Cal.5th 697, 764.) Counsel shall not "make personally insulting or derogatory remarks directed at opposing counsel or impugn counsel's motives or character." (Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency v.

Dhaliwal (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 1315, 1338-1339.) "Personal attacks on the integrity of opposing counsel can constitute misconduct." (People v. Winbush (2017) 2 Cal.5th 402, 484.) "A lawyer must work to advance the lawful and legitimate interest of his or her client. This duty includes an obligation not to act abusively or disCourteously. Zealous representation of the client's interest should be carried out in a professional manner." (Santa Barbara County Local Rules, Appendix 5, P. A.1.) Zealous advocacy does not equate to unprofessional remarks.

Rather than refrain from his personal attacks, they have gotten more vitriolic and are now being directed at both Plaintiff's attorney and Plaintiff. Civility is very important to this Court and calling Plaintiff things such as a "mentally incompetent person," or an "uneducated nineteen year-old with mental defects," is unacceptable. The Court considered issuing an order to show cause re: personally sanctioning Hugo Torbet or holding him in contempt of Court for intentionally violating the Court's order that he conduct himself in a professional and civil manner. The Court will give Hugo Torbet another opportunity to conduct himself as he should, but he should be aware that the Court will not continue tolerating such a lack of civility.

Tentative Ruling: Irene B. Kopel, as trustee of the Irene B. Kopel 1993 Trust u/d/t dated November 23, 1993, v. Lynch Construction, Inc. Tentative Ruling: Irene B. Kopel, as trustee of the Irene B. Kopel 1993 Trust u/d/t dated November 23, 1993, v. Lynch Construction, Inc. Case Number

Case Type Civil Law & Motion Hearing Date / Time Wed, 05/27/2026 - 10:00 Nature of Proceedings 1. Motion of Defendant and Cross-Complainant to File First Amended Cross-Complaint; 2. Motion of Defendant and Cross-Complainant to File First Amended Cross-Complaint Tentative Ruling For Plaintiff Irene B. Kopel, as trustee of the Irene B. Kopel 1993 Trust u/d/t dated November 23, 1993: Christopher E. Haskell, Cory T. Baker, Price, Postel & Parma LLP For Defendant and Cross-Complainant Lynch Construction, Inc.: S. Joanna Dyriam, Ashton L. McKinnon, Wood, Smith, Henning & Berman LLP; Patrick W. Berry, Seth A. Kaswan, McCoy Leavitt Laskey LLC; Peter K. Pritchard, Javid Laknahour, Sellar Hazard & Lucia

RULING

The motion of Defendant and cross-complainant Lynch Construction, Inc., for leave to file a first amended cross-complaint is granted. The motion of Plaintiff Irene B. Kopel for leave to file a first amended complaint is granted. The amended pleadings for which leave is granted by these orders shall be filed and served, in forms substantially the same as attached to the respective motions, on or before June 4, 2026.

Background

On April 28, 2025, Plaintiff Irene B. Kopel, as trustee of the Irene B. Kopel 1993 Trust u/d/t dated November 23, 1993 (Kopel), filed the original complaint in this construction defect action against Defendant Lynch Construction, Inc. (Lynch).

On June 30, 2025, Lynch filed its answer to the complaint, generally denying the allegations thereof and asserting 38 affirmative defenses. Lynch concurrently filed a cross-complaint (Lynch Cross-Complaint) for indemnity and negligence against cross-Defendants Southwest Door & Window of California, Inc. (Southwest Door), Lewis Plumbing Inc. (Lewis Plumbing), Anguiano Bros. Corporation (Anguiano Bros.), Pat Thomas Drywall (Thomas Drywall), Quality Plastering, Inc (Quality Plastering), Ironcad Ltd. (Ironcad), Ilenstine Tile, Inc. (Ilenstine Tile), Custom Paver Pros Inc. (Custom Paver), Santa Barbara Surfacing, Inc. (SB Surfacing), and Besand Group (Besand).

On August 15, 2025, Ironcad filed its answer to the Lynch Cross-Complaint, generally denying the allegations thereof and asserting 26 affirmative defenses.

On August 27, 2025, the Court designated this matter as complex.

On September 10, 2025, Besand filed its answer to the Lynch Cross-Complaint, generally denying the allegations thereof and asserting 21 affirmative defenses. Besand concurrently filed a cross-complaint against fictitiously named cross-Defendants for indemnity.

On September 17, 2025, Quality Plastering filed its answer the Lynch Cross-Complaint, generally denying the allegations thereof and asserting 30 affirmative defenses.

On September 19, 2025, Anguiano Bros. filed its answer the Lynch Cross-Complaint, generally denying the allegations thereof and asserting 25 affirmative defenses.

On September 24, 2025, Ilenstine Tile filed its answer the Lynch Cross-Complaint, generally denying the allegations thereof and asserting 19 affirmative defenses.

On October 7, 2025, Thomas Drywall filed its answer the Lynch Cross-Complaint, generally denying the allegations thereof and asserting 37 affirmative defenses.

On October 19, 2025, SB Surfacing filed its answer the Lynch Cross-Complaint, generally denying the allegations thereof and asserting 39 affirmative defenses.

On December 15, 2025, the Court entered a joint complex case management order.

On January 12, 2026, Lynch filed its amendment to the Lynch Cross-Complaint identifying as Defendants Roe 1 through 7 as, respectively, Challenge Asphalt, Inc. (Challenge Asphalt), Custom Hardscapes, Inc. (Custom Hardscapes), Jon Rose Construction, Inc. (Rose Construction), Lazcano Masonry & Concrete, Inc. (Lazcano Masonry), Loewen, Pacific Stoneworks, Inc. (Pacific Stoneworks), and Pappa's Plastering & Drywall, Inc. (Pappa's Plastering).

On March 17, 2026, Lynch filed its motion for leave to file a first amended cross-complaint to add two cross-Defendants and to add a new cause of action for professional negligence against those cross-Defendants.

On April 7, 2026, Kopel filed three "Doe" amendments to the complaint, identifying Anguiano Bros, Custom Hardscapes, and Quality Plastering as Does 1 through 3, respectively.

On April 13, 2026, Custom Hardscapes filed its answer to the Lynch Cross-Complaint, generally denying the allegations thereof and asserting 19 affirmative defenses. Custom Hardscapes concurrently filed a cross-complaint (Custom Hardscapes Cross-Complaint) for indemnity against Lynch and each of the other Lynch Cross-Complaint Cross-Defendants.

On April 21, 2026, Anguiano Bros filed its answer to the complaint, generally denying the allegations thereof and asserting 19 affirmative defenses.

On April 29, 2026, Kopel filed a motion for leave to file a first amended complaint to add specific charging allegations against five Doe Defendants and to add and clarify factual allegations regarding the construction defects. Also on April 29, Kopel filed two "Doe" amendments to the complaint identifying Rose Construction and Lazcano Masonry as Does 4 and 5, respectively.

On May 1, 2026, Quality Plastering filed its answer to the Custom Hardscapes Cross-Complaint, generally denying the allegations thereof and asserting 17 affirmative defenses.