Abley – Trust

The burden is on the party seeking the protective order to show good cause for whatever order is sought. (Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Sup.Ct. (Stendell) (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255.)

“Good cause” requires specific facts demonstrating unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden and expense. (Goodman v. Citizens Life & Cas. Ins. Co. (1967) 253 Cal.App.2d 807, 819.) The discovery burden is “undue” only if the inconvenience and expense of responding clearly outweighs the benefits likely to be obtained if the discovery is answered. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2019.030(a).)

Objectors argue that good cause exists to issue a protective order exempting them from responding to any discovery because they are “elderly/infirm and unintentional parties” to this litigation. (ROA 60, 4:15-21.)

Objectors further argue that it would be unreasonable for them to be required to respond to discovery because they are nearly 100 years old, and Bert is suffering from short term memory loss. Objectors state that responding to discovery would be an extremely time-consuming and painstaking process and would cause them significant stress.

The court finds such arguments unpersuasive.

Objectors opposed Petitioner’s ex parte application to have a guardian ad litem appointed for Objectors. (ROA 88.) In the opposition to the ex parte application, Objectors argued as follows: “The fact that [Objectors] are elderly and require

assistance with their daily living certainly does not equate to legal incapacity to participate with their counsel’s assistance in the pending litigation.” ROA 88, 5:25.)

In the same opposition to the ex parte applications (ROA 88), Objectors reference the instant discovery dispute and the instant Motion for Protective Order. In ruling on the ex parte application, the court made no finding as to the subject discovery. Rather, the court denied the ex parte application to appoint a GAL, finding no exigent circumstances and no evidence that Objectors lacked legal capacity. (ROA 121.)

Objectors cannot have it both ways. Either Objectors have capacity to participate in the litigation with assistance from their counsel or they do not. Participation in litigation includes participation in pretrial discovery.

A GAL would have authority to respond to and verify discovery on behalf of Objectors. (See Regency Health Services, Inc. v. Superior Court (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 1496.) Without a GAL, Objectors must respond to discovery and verify the responses themselves. But the court cannot simply exempt a party from all discovery.

In support of this motion, Objectors make the conclusory statement that the burden of the subject discovery is incommensurate with the "result sought" because Petitioner could obtain the information from other sources, such as the estate planning attorneys who drafted the subject estate documents or the Objectors' treating physicians. (ROA 60, 6:6-12.) However, Objectors do not point to any particular interrogatory or request that is burdensome or that seeks information that could be more readily obtained elsewhere.

In the process of meeting and conferring, counsel for Petitioner stated that they are "willing to meet and confer in good faith regarding any specific requests [Objectors] contend are objectionable or unduly burdensome." Instead, Objectors have moved for a protective order that exempts them from responding to any discovery at all due to their physical, mental, and emotional frailties.

Objectors elected to file an Objection to Petitioner’s Petition, thereby making themselves parties to the instant litigation and subject to written discovery under the Discovery Act. The court is required to consider the Objection and any evidence pertaining to it. (Prob. Code § 1046.) Objectors cannot request that the court consider their Objection to the Petition and simultaneously request that they be protected from the burden of having to provide any evidence in support of their Objection.

To be clear: The court does not doubt that responding to discovery (of any type or quantity) will be particularly difficult and stressful for Objectors given their advanced age and consequent infirmities. However, Objectors have refused the appointment of a GAL; they have not requested any specific accommodations; they have not requested to limit the amount of discovery; and they have not pointed to any particular discovery request as unduly burdensome.

In short, Objectors have not met their burden of showing good cause for a protective order that exempts them from responding to discovery altogether.

Based on the foregoing, Objectors' motion for protective is DENIED.

No Order Compelling Further Responses

Objectors state that prior to filing this motion, they timely served "blanket objections" to the subject discovery. In her Opposition to this motion, Petitioner argues that certain objections made (e.g., on the grounds of relevancy, formation, and privilege) lack merit. Neither Objectors nor Petitioner provided the court with a copy of Objectors' discovery responses.

To the extent Objectors objected to any interrogatory or request on the grounds that any and all written discovery propounded on them is overly burdensome in light of their advanced age, then such objection lacks merit for reasons stated hereinabove. However, the court makes no finding as to the merits of any other objection made in response to any particular interrogatory or request.

To obtain an order compelling further responses, Petitioner must meet and confer and file a motion.

Please note: Effective 1/1/26, meeting and conferring regarding discovery must be conducted in person, by telephone, or by videoconference. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2016.040 and 2023.010(i).)

Counsel for Petitioner is ordered to serve notice of ruling on this motion.

01004237 Griffin – Probate TENTATIVE RULING

Case: Griffin – Probate 01004237