Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Portions of Defendant’s Motion to Compel Further Responses
9:00 24CV448840 Skanska-Shimmick-Herzog Order CONTINUING for one week 1 v. Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Portions LAN/T.Y. Lin, et al. of Defendant’s Motion to Compel Further Responses
Plaintiff Skanska-Shimmick-Herzog (“Plaintiff”) brings this Motion to Strike certain materials—submitted with Defendant LAN/T.Y. Lin’s Motion to Compel Further Responses that is noticed for hearing on July 24, 2026 (the “Motion to Compel”)—on the ground that the disputed materials are privileged or protected from disclosure by mediation confidentiality under California Evidence Code sections 1119 and 1126. But as the central issue in the July 24, 2026 Hearing on the Motion to Compel is whether these disputed materials are protected by mediation confidentiality, it makes practical and logical sense for the Court to decide this issue once by deciding both these Motions on the same date on July 24, 2026.
Simply put, as resolution of this Motion to Strike and the Motion to Compel are inextricably entwined in the issue of whether disputed documents are privileged, they should be heard and resolved at the same time as a matter of judicial efficiency, logic, and the Court’s inherent authority to manage its files.
Accordingly, the Court hereby CONTINUES this Motion to Strike for one week to July 24, 2026 at 9:00 AM in Department 16. The Court further notes that because this Continuance of this Motion to Strike is for only one week, any prejudice to Plaintiff caused by this one- week delay is de minimis.
SO ORDERED.
9:00 24CV448840 Skanska-Shimmick-Herzog Order on Cross-Defendant Anil 2 v. Verma Associates, Inc.’s Motion for LAN/T.Y. Lin, et al. Leave to file a Cross-Complaint against Alliance Engineering Consulting, Inc.
See Line 2 below for complete tentative ruling.
After the hearing, the Court will prepare and file the formal Order.
9:00 22CV408177 John Roe 1, et al. Order on Defendant Santa Clara 3 v. Unified School District (“SCUSD”)’s Mountain View Whisman Motion for Summary Judgment or, School District, et al. in the alternative, for Summary Adjudication
See Line 3 below for complete tentative ruling.
After the hearing, the Court will prepare and file the formal Order.
9:00 25CV467427 Fresko Meat Distributions, Inc. Order on Plaintiff’s Motion to 4 v. Compel Further Responses for Rigoberto Sanchez, Jr., et al. Production of Documents from Defendant and for Sanctions
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
After the hearing, the Court will prepare and file the formal Order.
Line 1 Case Name: Skanska-Shimmick-Herzog v. LAN/T.Y. Lin, et al. Case No.: 24CV448840 See Order above. (The Court hereby CONTINUES this Motion to Strike for one week to July 24, 2026 at 9:00 AM in Department 16.)
Line 2 Case Name: Skanska-Shimmick-Herzog v. LAN/T.Y. Lin, et al. Case No.: 24CV448840 Cross-Defendant Anil Verma Associates, Inc. (“AVA”) moves under Code of Civil Procedure Sections 428.10 and 428.50 et seq. for leave to file a permissive Cross- Complaint against Alliance Engineering Consulting, Inc. (“AEC”) on the grounds that AVA recently learned through discovery and communications with other parties of its causes of action contained in the proposed Cross-Complaint, which seeks affirmative relief on indemnity claims form a third party, AEC, who is not currently a party to this litigation. Notice of Motion (the “Motion”) at 2:1-10 (filed: April 21, 2026).
The Motion came on for hearing on July 17, 2026, at 9:00 AM in Department 16. After reviewing all the papers and the record, and giving counsel for all parties the full and fair opportunity to be heard, the Court finds and rules as follows.
Background
As AVA’s Motion for Leave to File Cross-Complaint points out, this matter “involves a dizzying array and large volume of highly technical design professional construction claims.” (Motion at 4:24-25.) The Complaint which initiated the instant action was filed on October 4, 2024. In its First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), filed March 14, 2025, plaintiff Skanska- Shimmick-Herzog (“SSH”) asserts causes of action for negligence, breach of contract, and indemnity against Defendants Lockwood Andrews Newnam, Inc. (“LAN”), T.Y. Lin International, LAN/T.Y. Lin, and Does 1-30, inclusive.
This civil action arises from parties’ work on the Silicon Valley Berryessa Extension Project (“the Project”) for the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (“VTA”). (FAC, ¶¶ 8- 13.) In 2011, VTA hired SSH to be the design builder on the Project. (FAC, ¶¶ 10, 14.) In 2012, SSH entered into a subcontract with LAN and T.Y. Lin International for project design. (FAC, ¶¶ 11, 15.) SSH and Defendants “were involved in a prior lawsuit related to design errors and omission arising out of the project that damaged SSH.” (FAC, ¶ 17.) In March 2019, SSH and Defendants entered a settlement agreement that exempted some claims from the agreement. (FAC, ¶18.) In October 2019, SSH filed a complaint against VTA for “unpaid change orders and incentive payments on the project.” (FAC, ¶ 19.) VTA filed a cross-complaint against SSH. (FAC, ¶¶ 20, 21.) VTA and SSH settled in 2023. (FAC, ¶ 30.)
Neither Plaintiff’s Original Complaint nor the FAC named AVA as a defendant. AVA was not a party to this litigation until LAN filed a Cross-Complaint against AVA on December 8,
8