CASE NUMBER: 25CV-0208122 Tentative Ruling on Motion for Protective Order: Defendant Ask Pete’s Corp. dba Pete’s Restaurant & Brewhouse (“Ask Pete’s”) moves for a Protective Order pursuant to CCP 2030.090, 2031.060, 2019.030, 2017.020, and 2025.420 regarding Plaintiff William Bowen’s requests for production, set one, nos. 3-13, 15-45, 47-61, and 63-65; special interrogatories, set one, nos. 1-8, 12, and 13; form interrogatories, general, set one, nos. 4.1-4.3, 12.2, 12.3 and 12.6; and his Person Most Qualified Deposition Notice topic nos. 2-5, 7, and 11-33. The Motion is made on the grounds that Plaintiff seeks irrelevant discovery that is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and that the discovery is overbroad, burdensome and invasive of privacy interests. Ask Pete’s also seeks sanctions in the amount of $9,002.50. Plaintiff opposes the Motion.

Meet and Confer: Meet and confer efforts were required prior to filing the motion. CCP 2031.060. The Declaration of Galen Gentry provides adequate evidence of meet and confer efforts. However, given the Court’s granting of Plaintiff’s Motion to Continue Trial on May 11, 2026, additional meet and confer efforts could likely have obviated the need for Court intervention on these issues.

Merits: A party may seek a protective order to limit or avoid responding to discovery requests, by demonstrating good cause. The court may issue such an order to protect a party or other affected person from "unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden and expense." CCP §§ 2031.060, 2030.090. The burden of showing good cause rests on the party seeking the protective order, who must provide specific facts justifying the relief sought, rather than relying on broad or conclusory statements.

Nativi v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co., 223 Cal. App. 4th 261 (2014), Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Superior Court, 22 Cal. 4th 245 (2000). The court has broad discretion to issue protective orders, which may include directions that certain discovery need not be responded to, or that responses be made under specified terms and conditions.

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…

Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Other rulings by Unknown Judge Unknown dossier Other Motion for Protective Order in SHASTA All SHASTA County rulings Other Employment Class Action cases Other denied rulings in SHASTA

Related rulings

by semantic similarity

Source

Print-friendly view

. Additionally, the court must balance the burden, expense, or intrusiveness of the discovery against its likely benefit, considering factors such as the needs of the case, the amount in controversy, and 1

the importance of the issues at stake. Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants, 148 Cal. App. 4th 390 (2007). The court may impose just terms and conditions for the discovery and may also impose monetary sanctions unless the opposing party acted with substantial justification or other circumstances make sanctions unjust. CCP §§ 2031.060, 2030.090, 2017.020.

Defendant’s main argument here is that Plaintiff’s belatedly served discovery is irrelevant, because it largely concerns overbroad and disproportionate class discovery. Defendant argues that Plaintiff is unable to certify a class due to the impending trial date, and that he may only meaningfully pursue individual claims at this point. While this may have been true at the time this Motion was filed, it is no longer the case. The Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion to Continue Trial on May 11, 2026 and extended discovery deadlines to coincide with a trial date to be set at a future review hearing.

Ask Pete’s particularly calls out Request for Production Nos. 42, 50, and 65 as overly broad. Number 65 seeks all documents evidencing any activity by covered employees on your point of sales system during the covered period. The Court agrees that this RFP appears to be overbroad as it would potentially encompass all sales transactions for the restaurant. The same is true for RFP 42, which is unclear and overbroad. RFP 50 is not overbroad as it seeks documents evidencing termination dates of employees during the covered periods – not the speculative information Defendant suggests regarding personnel files.

The Court declines to impose a protective order as to these RFPs at this time. The parties are directed to meet and confer regarding narrowing the scope of Numbers 42 and 65. Defendant may seek additional relief on this point if the parties cannot resolve the matter through good faith meet and confer efforts.

Sanctions: The Court shall impose sanctions against any party who unsuccessfully makes a motion for a protective order unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. CCP § 2031.060(h). Here, the Court finds imposing sanctions on this Motion would be unjust. At the time the Motion was filed, Defendant was justified in arguing that the impending trial date made the class discovery overly broad. However, before this Motion is set for hearing, the Court continued the trial date and extended discovery deadlines. Therefore, at this time, class discovery is warranted and there is no good cause for a protective order.

The Motion is DENIED. Sanctions will not be imposed. Moving party did not submit a proposed order as required by Local Rule 5.17(D). Defendant is to prepare the order.

BOWEN VS. ASK PETE'S CORP CASE NUMBER: 25CV-0208122 Tentative Ruling on Motions to Compel Further Responses to Discovery: Plaintiff William Bowen moves to compel further responses to Demands for Production, Set One and to Special Interrogatories, Set One. Defendant Aske Pete’s Corp dba Pete’s Brewhouse & Restaurant opposes the Motions.

On receipt of a response to a demand for inspection or to interrogatories, a propounding party may move for an order compelling further responses if the responses are inadequate. CCP §§ 2031.310(a), 2030.300(a). A motion to compel further responses for production must show “good cause” for the request. CCP § 2031.310(b)(1). The motion must be accompanied by a meet and 2

confer declaration under Section 2016.040. CCP §§ 2030.300(b) and 2031.310(b). The Declarations of Ryan Kuhn do not state facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt, either in person, by telephone, or by videoconference, to informally resolve each issue presented by the motion, as required by section 2016.040.

Most importantly, Plaintiff’s Motions were not filed on receipt of a response to their discovery, but rather prior to receiving the timely served discovery responses. This is improper. Plaintiff propounded the discovery at issue on March 24, 2026 by mail and email. Per CCP §1010.6, Defendant had 30 days, plus 2 court days (for service by email) to serve responses. Defendant therefore had until April 27, 2026 to timely serve responses. Plaintiff filed and served these two Motions to Compel Further Responses on April 27, 2026.

Defendant served their responses to the discovery later that same day, on April 27, 2026. In other words, Plaintiff filed and served his Motions prematurely, in anticipation of inadequate responses. While the Court acknowledges Plaintiff’s rationale concerning the discovery cutoff, the pending motion for protective order, and the impending trial date, the Code does not permit this. Therefore, the Motions are denied without prejudice. The Court declines to reach the merits of whether there is good cause for further production at this time.

Considering the recently granted trial continuance, it appears the bulk of the dispute is largely moot. The Court requires the parties to meet and confer in person, by telephone, or by videoconference, to attempt to resolve discovery disputes informally as required by section 2016.040.

Both sides request monetary sanctions pursuant to CCP §§ 2030.290(c), 2031.300(c), and 2033.280(c). Sanctions are mandatory against the unsuccessful party, absent substantial justification or other circumstances that would make imposition of the sanctions unjust. Here, Plaintiff is the unsuccessful party. Plaintiff filed his motion to compel prematurely and without meeting and conferring in violation of the CCP. The Court does not find substantial justification or other circumstances that would make imposition of sanctions unjust.

Defendant requests sanctions of $6,980.50 (10.3 attorney hours at rates of $515 and $430 per hour) for the Motion on the Requests for Production, and $4,539.50 (15.7 attorney hours at rates of $515 and $430 per hour) on the Motion for on the Special Interrogatories. The Court finds that 26 attorney hours on these two very similar discovery motions is unreasonable. Additionally, the hourly rates are higher than what is typically awarded by the Court in Shasta County, and no evidence that Defendant could not secure competent local counsel has been presented.

Sanctions of $3,200.00 total for both motions will be awarded, consisting of 8 attorney hours at rate of $400 per hour.

Plaintiffs Motion to Compel Further Responses to Demand for Production of Documents is DENIED. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories is DENIED. Sanctions of $3,200.00 total are awarded against Plaintiff. The Court will modify and execute the proposed orders.

CASTELLANOS, ET AL. VS. BEAR TRACKS HOLDINGS, LLC