Egan vs. B.C. Doering Company

Superior Court of the State of California County of Orange

DEPT C13 TENTATIVE RULINGS

The Honorable Nico A. Dourbetas

Civil Court Reporters: The Court does not provide court reporters for law and motion hearings. Please see the Court’s website for rules and procedures for court reporters obtained by the Parties.

Tentative Rulings: The Court will endeavor to post tentative rulings on the Court’s website by 4 p.m. on the day before the motion is set to be heard. Do NOT call the Department for a tentative ruling if none is posted. The Court will NOT entertain a request for continuance or the filing of further documents once a tentative ruling has been posted.

Submitting on the Tentative Ruling: If ALL counsel intend to submit on the tentative ruling and do not wish oral argument, please advise the Court’s clerk or courtroom attendant by calling (657) 622-5213. If all sides submit on the tentative ruling and so advise the Court, the tentative ruling shall become the Court’s final ruling and the prevailing party shall give Notice of Ruling and prepare an Order for the Court’s signature if appropriate under CRC 3.1312. Please do not call the Department unless ALL parties submit on the tentative ruling.

Non-Appearances: If no one appears for the hearing and the Court has not been notified that all parties submit on the tentative ruling, the Court shall determine whether the matter is taken off calendar or whether the tentative ruling shall become the final ruling.

Appearances: Counsel may appear by video on Zoom.

1. Visit https://www.occourts.org/media-relations/aci.html

Date: June 12, 2026

2 Egan vs. B.C. Doering Company

2024-01400799

1. Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories 2. Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories 3. Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories 4. Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories 5. Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories 6. Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories 7. Motion to Compel Production

8. Motion to Compel Production

Defendant James Doering’s Eight Motions To Compel Further Responses to Written Discovery

Defendant James Doering’s Eight Motions to Compel Plaintiffs Matthew Egan and Tobias Wolfe to Serve Further Responses to Written Discovery are GRANTED. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.300; 2031.310.)

Within 20 days of this ruling, Plaintiffs Matthew Egan and Tobias Wolfe each shall serve further code compliant responses to Defendant James Doering’s Demand For Production of Documents, Set One, Demand Nos. 1-22, Special Interrogatories, Set One, Interrogatory Nos. 1-22; Form Interrogatories – General, Set One, Interrogatory Nos. 1.1, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, 2.7, 2.8, 2.9, 2.10, 2.11, 12.1, 12.2, 12.3, 12.4, 12.5., 12.6, 12.7, 13.1, 13.2, 14.1, 14.2, 15.1, 50.1, 50.2, 50.3, 50.4, 50.5, and 50.6; and Form Interrogatories – Employment Law, Set One, Interrogatory numbers 200.1 – 200.6, 201.1 – 201.7, 202.1 – 202.2, 203.1, 204.1 – 204.7, 205.1, 206.1 – 206.2, 207.1 – 207.2, 208.1 – 208.2, 209.1 – 209.2, 210.2 – 210.6, - 212.1 – 212.1 – 7, 213.1 – 213.2 and 215.1 0 215.2.

Plaintiffs Matthew Egan and Tobias shall pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $4,680 within 30 days of this ruling.

Defendant has met and conferred with Plaintiffs’ counsel via video conference, pursuant to the Court’s 4/20/26 Minute Order. (ROA 296.) The Motion was timely filed within 45 days of service of the initial responses. Defendant has established good cause to compel further production of documents, as the original responses consist entirely of meritless objections.

Plaintiffs have failed to substantiate any of the objections in the disputed responses. Plaintiffs make no attempt to justify the merit

of any of the objections. Rather, Plaintiffs argue that Defendants have refused to grant sufficient extensions in time to respond to the discovery requests, but Defendant has granted Plaintiffs multiple extensions of time to respond to the requests, yet no substantive responses were served. Plaintiffs’ counsel declares that Plaintiffs were forced to serve responses consisting of objections only because Defendant would not grant any extension in time to respond beyond January 5, 2026. But Plaintiffs’ counsel also states that a 2 week extension was requested, yet there was no service of supplemental substantive responses after the 14 days Plaintiffs’ counsel claimed was needed to prepare complete responses.

Plaintiffs’ counsel now claims that even more extensions are required for substantive responses to be provided to Defendant. In light of this pattern of dilatory tactics that have enabled Plaintiffs to avoid any substantive participation in discovery, the Court does not find it necessary to continue these hearings any further.

Moving Defendant shall provide notice.

3 Saadeh vs. Bdair

2022-01248722

Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel of Record

The motion of attorney Robert A. von Esch IV and David V. Luu of von Esch Law Group ALC to withdraw as attorney of record for defendant Mohamed Bdair is GRANTED and effective upon filing of the proof of service on client. (Code Civ. Proc. § 284, CRC 3.1362.)

Moving attorney is to give notice.

Moving attorney shall also give notice of Plaintiff Belal Saadeh’s Notice of Motion and Motion to Correct and Clarify the Court’s May 29, 2026 Order (Code Civ. Proc. § 473(D); Inherent Authority); or, In The Alternative, For Reconsideration set on August 21, 2026 at 9:30 AM.