Richard Chamberlain v. Santa Clara Public Defender’s Office, et al.

SUPERIOR COURT, STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA Department 12 Honorable Nahal Iravani-Sani, Presiding Courtroom Clerk, Ryan Nguyen 191 North First Street, San Jose, CA 95113 Telephone: (408) 882-2230

DATE: 08/07/2026 TIME: 9:00 A.M. and 9:01 A.M.

LINE # CASE # CASE TITLE RULING LINE 1 23CV422700 Amarjeet Rai Motion for summary judgment/adjudication v. City of San Jose Please Ctrl Click (or scroll down to) Line 1

LINE 2 24CV443682 Freddy Lopez DEMURRER (x 2) & MOTION TO STRIKE (x 2) v. LINE 3 Belfor USA Group LINE 4 Please Ctrl Click (or scroll down to) Lines 2-5 LINE 5 LINE 6 25CV456689 Richard Chamberlain MOTION TO COMPEL v. LINE 7 Santa Clara Public Defender’s Office, et al. Please Ctrl Click (or scroll down to) Lines 6/7 LINE 8 25CV460170 Angela Washington MOTION TO COMPEL v. FCA US, LLC, et al. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel filed January 13, 2026. Notice is proper. The Court has received no opposition from Defendant. “[T]he failure to file an opposition creates an inference that the motion or demurrer is meritorious.” (Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410.) Good Cause Appearing, Plaintiff’s motion to compel is GRANTED. Motion re Sanctions pursuant to CCP 871.26(j)(1) in the amount of $2,500.00 is GRANTED.

Plaintiff to prepare the final proposed order, accompanied by the necessary Form EFS-020, within 7 days of the date of the hearing.

LINE 9 & 25CV483393 Syed Zafar Hamdani PETITION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION v. MOTION FOR TRIAL PREFERENCE LINE 10 Three Arch LLC et al. Please Ctrl Click (or scroll down to) Line 9 & 10

Calendar Line 6/7 Case Name: Richard Chamberlain v. Santa Clara Public Defender’s Office et al. Case No.: 25CV456689

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL & MOTION FOR SANCTIONS

Plaintiff seeks an order compelling the Santa Clara County Public Defender’s Office (“PDO”) to serve further responses to Plaintiff’s First Set of Requests for Production of Documents and requests $1,500 in monetary sanctions. Plaintiff contends the PDO’s responses are evasive and incomplete, rely on improper objections, fail to state whether responsive documents exist, fail to produce nonprivileged documents, and fail to provide a privilege log.

The parties agree that Plaintiff served the requests on December 15, 2025, and that the PDO served written responses on January 15, 2026. The requests seek documents including Plaintiff’s criminal file, internal policies and procedures, billing records and communications, internal logs or checklists, and notes or memoranda relating to witness investigation and evidence review. The PDO responded with objections, including attorney-client privilege and attorney work product objections, and declined to produce documents in response to the identified requests.

Plaintiff contends the PDO was required to provide a privilege log and argues that its failure to do so waived all privilege and work product objections.

GOVERNING LAW

A party may move to compel further responses to requests for production where a statement of compliance is incomplete, a representation of inability to comply is inadequate, or an objection is without merit or too general. Such a motion must be accompanied by a meet-and-confer declaration showing a reasonable and good-faith effort to resolve the dispute informally. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2031.310, 2016.040.)

A motion concerning the content of discovery responses must be accompanied by a separate statement unless an exception applies. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345.)

A response to a request for production must state compliance, inability to comply, or an objection. If privilege or work product protection is asserted, the response must provide sufficient factual information to permit evaluation of the claim, including a privilege log if necessary. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.240.)

Timely asserted attorney-client privilege and attorney work product objections are not waived solely because a responding party fails to provide a privilege log or provides an inadequate privilege log. The proper remedy for an inadequate privilege log is an order requiring additional information or other appropriate relief, not a judicial finding of waiver. See Catalina Island Yacht Club v. Superior Court (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 1116; Best Products, Inc. v. Superior Court (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 1181.

ANALYSIS

A. The Motion Is Procedurally Defective

The motion is procedurally defective because Plaintiff failed to submit the separate statement required by California Rules of Court, rule 3.1345. Plaintiff challenges the content of the PDO’s responses and seeks further responses to those requests. The record reflects that the PDO served written responses on January 15, 2026, and Plaintiff has not shown that any exception to the separate-statement requirement applies.

The motion is also procedurally defective because Plaintiff has not demonstrated a reasonable and good-faith meet-and-confer effort. Plaintiff’s showing establishes only that he sent a meetand-confer letter. The PDO’s evidence reflects that counsel responded substantively on January 23, 2026, explaining the PDO’s position, and that Plaintiff filed the present motion without any further effort to address the issues raised in that response. On this record, Plaintiff has not satisfied the meet-and-confer requirements of the Discovery Act.

These procedural defects provide an independent basis to deny the motion.

B. The PDO Did Not Waive Attorney-Client or Work Product Protection by Failing to Provide a Privilege Log

Plaintiff argues that the PDO waived all objections by failing to provide a privilege log. The argument lacks merit.

Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.240 requires a responding party asserting privilege or work product protection to provide sufficient factual information to permit evaluation of the claim, including a privilege log if necessary. However, the statute codifies existing California law and does not create a waiver rule for deficiencies in a privilege log. California courts have repeatedly held that where privilege or work product objections are timely asserted, the trial court lacks authority to deem those protections waived solely because no privilege log was served or because the privilege log is inadequate. The appropriate remedy is an order requiring additional information or a more detailed privilege log, not compelled disclosure of potentially privileged material.

Here, the record reflects that the PDO timely served written responses asserting attorney-client privilege and attorney work product objections. Accordingly, even assuming a privilege log should have been provided, the Court rejects Plaintiff’s contention that the PDO thereby waived all privilege and work product objections.

Because the motion is denied on procedural grounds, the Court does not reach the merits of Plaintiff’s challenges to individual responses or determine whether any additional factual information, including a privilege log, would otherwise be required.

SANCTIONS

Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions is DENIED.

DISPOSITION

Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, is DENIED.

Plaintiff’s request for a finding that the PDO waived attorney-client privilege and attorney work product objections by failing to provide a privilege log is DENIED.

Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions is DENIED.

Defendant to prepare the final proposed order, accompanied by necessary Form EFS-020 within 7 days of the hearing.

- oo0oo -