LOMELI vs U.C. REGENTS, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA BERKELEY, et al.

25CV125373: LOMELI vs U.C. REGENTS, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA BERKELEY, et al. 08/13/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses filed by Jay Lomeli (Plaintiff) CRS# 429159274794 in Department 520

Tentative Ruling - 08/11/2026 Jamilah A. Jefferson

The Motion re: TO COMPEL DEFENDANT TO SERVE FURTHER RESPONSES TO FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND COMPEL PRODUCTION; REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF 3,600 AGAINST DEFENDANT AND ITS COUNSEL filed by Jay Lomeli on 07/06/2026 is Granted in Part.

The Motion of Plaintiff Jay Lomeli (“Plaintiff”) to Compel Further and for Monetary Sanctions is GRANTED IN PART.

Monetary sanctions in the amount requested of $3,600 are awarded in the reduced amount of $700 against Defendant, jointly and severally, payable to Plaintiff forthwith. (Grunwald Decl. ¶ 24.)

Defendant’s cross-request for sanctions is denied.

Defendant U.C. Regents, University of California Berkeley (“Defendant”) shall serve further amended code-compliant responses with corresponding responsive documents to RPDs 14-21; 26; 29, 32; and 40 as detailed below. Defendant shall also serve amended responses as to RPDs Nos. 3-5, 7-10, 12-13 and 54, identifying (by bates number and document title) the documents that are responsive.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DISCUSSION The subject Requests for Production of Documents, Set One include, substantively, Nos. 14-21; 26; 29; 32; and 40, which concern Plaintiff’s former subordinates Ankia Dokes and Maria Rodriguez during Plaintiff’s employment at U.C. Berkeley. (Reply, pp. 4:27-5:3.) First, the Court rejects Defendant’s passing argument that Plaintiff may not seek any such information because he cannot assert associational disability based on a coworker relationship. (Oppo., p. 10:13-16.) The case Defendant cites in support of this argument does not limit associational disability to only familial or blood relationships and, in fact, cites to another case on which it relies in examining associational disability: “Larimer provides an illustrative, rather than an exhaustive, list of the kinds of circumstances in which we might find associational disability discrimination.

The common thread among the Larimer categories is simply that they 25CV125373: LOMELI vs U.C. REGENTS, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA BERKELEY, et al. 08/13/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses filed by Jay Lomeli (Plaintiff) CRS# 429159274794 in Department 520 are instances in which the “employer has a motive to discriminate against a nondisabled employee who is merely associated with a disabled person.” (Larimer, supra, 370 F.3d at p. 702.) (Castro-Ramirez v. Dependable Highway Express, Inc. (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 1028, 1042.)

To that end, Plaintiff seeks said information to support his claim that he was discriminated against because of his association with these two individuals, Dokes and Rodriguez, not to support an allegation of discrimination based on his own membership in a protected category. Thus, it is not me-too propensity information he seeks.

As to any potential infringement upon Dokes and Rodriguez’s privacy, the requests are temporally limited and the use of the parties’ protective order should further alleviate any related concerns, combined with Plaintiff’s alleged willingness to redact information that is not directly relevant to Plaintiff’s claim.

Finally, to Defendant’s argument that the information “may” implicate attorney-client privilege and work-product, to the extent that it is applicable, Defendant shall provide a privilege log. A privilege log is not optional. The privilege log shall provide the identity and capacity of all individuals who authored, sent, or received the allegedly privileged document, the document's date, a brief description of the document and its contents or subject matter sufficient to determine whether the privilege applies, and the precise privilege or protection asserted. (Catalina Island Yacht Club (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 1116, 1130.)

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion is GRANTED IN PART.

NOTICE: This tentative ruling will automatically become the court’s final order on August 13, 2026 unless, by no later than 4:00 P.M. on August 12, 2026, a party to the action notifies BOTH: 1) the court by emailing Dept520@alameda.courts.ca.gov; AND 2) all opposing counsel or selfrepresented parties (by telephone or email) that the party is contesting this tentative ruling.

The subject line (RE:) of the email must state: “Request for CONTESTED HEARING: [the case name], [number].” When a party emails to contest a tentative ruling, the party must identify the specific holding(s) within the ruling they wish to contest via oral argument.

The court does not provide court reporters for hearings in civil departments. A party who wants a record of the proceedings must engage a private court reporter. (Local Rule 3.95.) Any privately retained court reporter must also participate via video conference. Their email must be provided to the court at the time the Notice of Contest is emailed.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

25CV125373: LOMELI vs U.C. REGENTS, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA BERKELEY, et al. 08/13/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses filed by Jay Lomeli (Plaintiff) CRS# 429159274794 in Department 520 ALL CONTESTED LAW AND MOTION HEARINGS ARE CONDUCTED VIA REMOTE VIDEO unless an in person appearance is required by the court. Invitations to participate in the video proceeding will be sent by the court upon receipt of timely notice of contest. A party may give email notice they will appear in court in person for the hearing, however all other counsel/parties and the JUDGE MAY APPEAR REMOTELY.