Josselyn Mejia Alvarado v. Jacquelyn Martin

SUPERIOR COURT, STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA Department 10 Honorable Jeffrey B. El-Hajj Blanca Than, Courtroom Clerk 191 North First Street, San Jose, CA 95113

DATE: August 27, 2026 TIME: 9:00 A.M. / 9:01 A.M. To contest the ruling, call (408) 808-6856 before 4:00 P.M. Make sure to let the other side know before 4:00 P.M. that you plan to contest the ruling. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1308(a)(1); Local Rule 8.D.)

**Please specify the issue to be contested when calling the Court and counsel**

Line 7 25CV471183 Josselyn Mejia Alvarado Click LINE 7 or scroll down for ruling. v. Jacquelyn Martin Line 8 25CV471183 Josselyn Mejia Alvarado Click LINE 7 or scroll down for ruling. v. Jacquelyn Martin Line 9 24CV445456 North Mill Equipment (Continued from August 25, 2026.) Plaintiff’s discovery motion Finance, LLC et al. v. against individual defendant Ryan Peacock seeks three things: RYAN PEACOCK et al. initial responses to form interrogatories, set one (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290); initial responses to requests for production, set one (Code Civ.

Proc., § 2031.300); and that the court deem admitted requests for admission, set one (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280). Defendant did not respond to any of the discovery requests. On good cause shown, the motion is GRANTED. Defendant Ryan Peacock is ordered to respond to the form interrogatories and requests for production, without objections, no later than September 28, 2026. The requests for admission are deemed admitted. The request for sanctions is GRANTED IN PART. Defendant Ryan Peacock is ordered to pay plaintiff $900 in sanctions (three hours at the requested rate of $300/hour).

Moving party to submit proposed order restating this tentative decision and also listing verbatim the admissions to be admitted. - oo0oo -

Calendar Lines 7 and 8 Case Name: Josselyn Mejia Alvarado v. Jacquelyn Martin Case No.: 25CV471183

At issue are two motions to compel filed by Plaintiff Josselyn Mejia Alvarado against defendant Jacquelyn Martin: (1) a motion to compel further responses to form interrogatories; and (2) a motion to compel further responses to requests for production. Notice is proper and the motions are opposed by defendant. The contested discovery concerns surveillance of plaintiff in “places open to public view” taken by someone hired by the defense.

The Discovery At Issue

Form interrogatory No. 13.1 asks, “Have you or anyone acting on your behalf conducted surveillance of any individual involved in the incident or any party to this action?” (Capitalization omitted.) It further asks for information about any surveillance conducted, including: the contact information for the individual surveilled; the “time, date, and place of the surveillance”; the contact information for the individual who conducted the surveillance; and the contact information for each person who has the original or a copy of the surveillance.

Form interrogatory No. 13.2 asks whether a written report has been prepared related to any surveillance and, if so, for information about the report (including its title; its date; and the contact information for the individual who prepared the report). Defendant objected that the information is protected by the attorney-client privilege and the attorney work product doctrine. Defendant also objected that the interrogatory improperly asked for “rebuttal witness information.” Defendant provided the following substantive responses.

To No. 13.1, “Yes. Surveillance of Plaintiff conducted in 2025 in places open to public view around Belmont, California.” To No. 13.2, “Yes. Surveillance Report in 2025.”

Request for production No. 15 asked for a copy of “all photographs of Plaintiff following the incident.” (Capitalization omitted.) Request for production No. 16 asked for a “copy of all sub rosa films taken of Plaintiff as a result of the incident.” (Capitalization omitted.) Defendant objected that the information is protected by the attorney-client privilege and the attorney work product doctrine. The amended responses to Nos. 15 and 16 both state: “Defendant is in possession of films taken as a result of sub rosa investigation conducted on or around August 2025 in placed open to public view around Belmont, California by a consultant retained on behalf of defendant for purposes of investigating and evaluating plaintiff’s claims. Said photographs are privileged and will not be produced.” Defendant did not produce a privilege log.

No Attorney-Client Privilege

The Supreme Court determined in 1962 that surveillance film like the media at issue in this case is not protected by the attorney-client privilege. (Suezaki v. Superior Court of Santa Clara County (1962) 58 Cal.2d 166, 177 [“The films are representations of the plaintiff, not of the defendants. If they can be said to be a ‘communication’ in any sense of the word, they represent an unconscious and unintended ‘communication’ from plaintiff.”].) That court also affirmed the trial court’s finding that good cause supported production of the media, namely “a need for the films both in order to protect against surprise, and in order to prepare for examination of the person who took the pictures.” (Id. at p. 172.)

Under Suezaki, the attorney-client privilege does not protect anything responsive to the form interrogatories and requests for production at issue here. The objection is overruled.

Attorney Work Product Doctrine

Suezaki was decided before the attorney work product doctrine was codified. Absolute work product is any “writing that reflects an attorney’s impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal research or theories.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2018.030, subd. (a).) Absolute work product is “not discoverable under any circumstances.” (Ibid.) Qualified work product includes “derivative or interpretive material—material created by or derived from an attorney’s work reflecting the attorney’s evaluation of the law or facts.” (Coito v.

Superior Court (2012) 54 Cal.4th 480, 488.) It can also include work “produced by an attorney’s agents and consultants.” (Citizens for Ceres v. Superior Court (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 889, 911.) Qualified work product is “not discoverable unless the court determines that denial of discovery will unfairly prejudice the party seeking discovery in preparing that party’s claim or defense or will result in an injustice.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2018.030, subd. (b).)

The discovery responses confirm that “films” exist that are responsive to plaintiff’s discovery request. Those films were apparently created “by a consultant retained on behalf of defendant for purposes of investigating and evaluating plaintiff’s claims.” The court has no further evidence describing the films or the circumstances of their creation. Defense counsel’s opposition declarations do not describe the extent of counsel’s supervision over the surveillance consultant. And defendant chose not to produce a privilege log. Defendant’s argument in opposition that the filming “was taken from particular angles and viewpoints as instructed by Defense counsel” is forfeited because it is unsupported by the record.

Based on the information available to the court, none of the requested discovery is entitled to absolute work product protection. None of it reflects an attorney’s impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal research or theories. At most, the requested discovery is entitled to qualified work product protection. The court finds the information responsive to the interrogatories and any unedited photographs and video media taken of plaintiff must be produced. Plaintiff has no other means of obtaining this information because the media is in defendant’s possession. (People v.

Hunter (2017) 15 Cal.App.5th 163, 182 [“Establishing that there is no alternative source for the information is an important factor in showing good cause, though it may not be required in every case.”].) And plaintiff will be unfairly prejudiced if the media that defendant confirms exists and indicates may be used for impeachment is not produced. The attorney work produce objections are overruled.

Defendant’s remaining arguments against production are unpersuasive. Defendant suggests plaintiff has an alternative source for the information because she “is uniquely familiar with her own activities.” A person’s activities are different than surveillance footage of those activities. Defendant contends disclosing the surveillance media would permit plaintiff’s counsel to coach plaintiff’s testimony and reduce its impeachment value. But the media speaks for itself, and will have potential impeachment value regardless of plaintiff’s testimony.

Plaintiff has also apparently already been deposed, meaning any trial testimony will need to be consistent with her deposition testimony that was provided before plaintiff viewed the surveillance media. Defendant cites Evidence Code section 769 and 770. Neither of those sections regard a party’s discovery obligations in a civil case. Defendant’s citations to an appellate opinion about a criminal trial and court rules about expedited jury trials are irrelevant. 18

Conclusion

The motions to compel are granted. Defendant must answer all questions posed in form interrogatory Nos. 13.1 and 13.2. Defendant must produce all “all photographs of Plaintiff following the incident” (RFP No. 15), and “all sub rosa films taken of Plaintiff as a result of the incident” (RFP No. 16). Regarding the requests for production, only the unedited media must be disclosed. Defendant must produce the discovery no later than September 14, 2026.

The court will prepare the order.

- oo0oo -

19