O., et al. v. Global-Dining, et al.

If a party to whom request for admissions are served fails to provide a timely response, the party to whom the request was directed waives any objections, including based on privilege or the work product doctrine. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2033.280(a).) The requesting party can move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the request be deemed admitted, as well as for monetary sanctions. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2033.280(b).) The court shall issue this order unless the party to whom the request was made serves a response in substantial compliance prior to the hearing on the motion. (Code Civ.

Proc., Sec. 2033.280(c).) Here, Tatel served the Requests for Admission, Set One, on Mkrtchyan on May 13, 2025. (Lake Declaration, P. 3.) On October 17, 2025, Tatel requested full and complete responses without objections by October 31, 2025. (Id. at P. 6.) As of the filing of this motion, Mkrtchyan has not responded. (Id. at P.P. 7-8.) Mkrtchyan has not filed opposition indicating that that he has produced responsive discovery since this motion was filed. The Court GRANTS Tatel's motion to deem RFAs admitted.

Sanctions Sanctions are mandatory against the party, the attorney, or both whose failure to serve a timely response to the request necessitated the motion to deem request for admissions as admitted. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2033.280(c); see also Cal. Rules of Court R. 3.1348(a) [the court can award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party seeking to compel discovery even though no opposition was filed, the opposition was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed].)

Tatel requests attorneys' fees and the $60.00 filing fee for this motion as sanctions. Tatel's counsel bills it at a rate of $245 per hour. Counsel's rate is reasonable. Tatel's Counsel spent two hours preparing this motion and requests another three hours for replying and attending the hearing. Two hours for preparing this motion is reasonable. Because this motion is unopposed, one hour to attend the hearing is reasonable. The Court GRANTS Tatel $795 ($245 x 3 + $60) in sanctions.

Conclusion

Tatel's Motion to Deem RFAs Admitted is GRANTED. Tatel is awarded $795 in fees.

Ruling 0., et al. v. Global-Dining, et al., Case No. 24SMCV03113 Global-Dining's Motion to Conduct Independent Medical Examination Hearing Date: August 27, 2026 Background

On June 26, 2024, Plaintiffs O. and L. sued Defendants Global-Dining Inc. ("Global-Dining"), and Does 1-100 for negligence, sexual battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and false imprisonment. Plaintiffs allege that they were drugged and sexually assaulted at and following their visit to Global-Dining's restaurant, 1212 Bar and Restaurant, on July 3, 2022. (Complaint, P.P. 19-25.) On October 18, 2024, Global-Dining answered Plaintiffs' complaint. On January 7, 2025, Plaintiffs amended the complaint to name Treston Security Services, Inc. ("Treston Security") as Doe 1.

On August 27, 2025, Treston Security filed a substitution of attorney indicating that it would proceed pro per. On October 1, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Strike Treston Security's answer because Treston Security, a corporation, cannot represent itself in this action. On January 15, 2026, the Court granted Plaintiffs' motion and entered default against Treston. On February 11, 2026, Treston Security filed a substitution of attorney appointing Joan E. Cochran as its counsel of record. On May 27, 2026, the Court set aside defaults entered against Treston Security, Mark Treston, and Maynor Darton.

On July 23, 2026, the Court granted Global-Dining's Motion for Leave to Amend Cross-Complaint to name L.'s mother as a cross-defendant. On July 14, 2026, Global-Dining filed a Motion to Compel Plaintiffs' independent medical examinations. On August 14, 2026, the parties held an IDC with the Court on the motion to compel the independent medical examinations that resolved all the issues except for one: Global-Dining's expert believes that it is his ethical duty to only disclose the raw data from the examination to another psychiatrist, and not to Plaintiffs' counsel.

On August 14, 2026, Plaintiffs filed opposition. On August 20, 2026, Global-Dining filed a reply Jury Trial is set for November 2, 2026. Motion to Conduct Medical Examination "If any party desires to obtain discovery by a physical examination other than that described in Article 2 (commencing with Section 2032.210), or by a mental examination, the party shall obtain leave of court." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2032.310, subd. (a).) "A motion for an examination under subdivision (a) shall

specify the time, place, manner, conditions, scope, and nature of the examination, as well as the identity and the specialty, if any, of the person or persons who will perform the examination. The motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040." (Id. subd. (b).) "The court shall grant a motion for a physical or mental examination under Section 2032.310 only for good cause shown." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2032.320, subd. (a).) Section 2032.320 subdivision (b) requires a motion for an IME to specific "the time, place, manner, conditions, scope, and nature of the examination . . . ." (Code Civ.

Proc., Sec. 2032.310 subd. (b).) Moreover, An order granting a physical or mental examination shall specify the person or persons who may perform the examination, as well as the time, place, manner, diagnostic tests and procedures, conditions, scope, and nature of the examination." (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 2032.320, subd. (d).) The California Supreme Court has held that a prior, but substantially similar, statute allowing for IMEs "defines a showing of 'good cause' as requiring that the party produce specific facts justifying discovery and that the inquiry be relevant to the subject matter of the action or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence." (Vinson v.

Superior Court (1987) 43 Cal.3d 833, 840.)

Discussion

Since the parties have agreed to parameters to conduct the Independent Medical Examinations, the only issue that remains for resolution is possession of the raw testing data. At the August 14, 2026 IDC, the parties appeared to agree that Global-Dining's neuropsychologist, Dr. Thames, would send the raw data to Plaintiffs' psychiatrist, Dr. Rosenburg. On August 14, 2026, Plaintiffs filed opposition arguing that Dr. Thames should either produce the data to Dr. Rosenburg with a declaration confirming that she authorizes him to transmit the data to Plaintiffs' counsel or that Dr.

Thames should be compelled to submit the data directly to counsel because Dr. Thames' ethical obligations are not legal restrictions on data production under the Discovery Act. (Opposition, p. 2.) In reply, Defendants argue that the Court's middle-ground solution is appropriate. The argument on this motion focuses primarily on one case: Randy's Trucking, Inc. v. Superior Ct. (2023) 91 Cal.App.5th 818. In Randy's Trucking, Inc. v. Superior Ct., Angela Buttram and Devon Robins, passengers on a school bus that was rear-ended by a tractor-trailer operated by Randy's Trucking, sued Randy's Trucking and its driver for personal injury damages. (Randy's Trucking, Inc. v.

Superior Ct., supra, 91 Cal.App.5th at 824.) Buttram claimed that the accident caused a traumatic brain injury. (Ibid.) Randy's Trucking moved to compel Buttram's independent medical examination by their neuropsychologist after Buttram refused to allow the examination to proceed unless her attorney received all raw data and test information from the exam. (Ibid.) Randy's Trucking asked that the Court prohibit that the information be distributed to anyone other than a licensed psychologist or neuropsychologist. (Ibid.)

The trial court granted Randy's Trucking's motion to compel the examination, but rejected its request to limit the data transmission because Plaintiffs did not have a psychologist or neuropsychologist expert. (Ibid.) As a result, Randy's Trucking's neuropsychologist recused herself because transmitting the data would violate her ethical obligations. (Id. at 825.) Two other neurophsycologists likewise refused to comply with the order. Randy's Trucking moved for reconsideration, which the trial court denied. (Id. at 831.)

On the writ of mandate, Randy's Trucking asked the Court of Appeal to either modify the transmission order to require the transmission of the raw data to the plaintiffs' psychologist or vacate the order and enter a new order granting the motion. (Id. at 825.) The Court of Appeal found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering Randy's Trucking's expert to turn over the raw data because it acted within its discretion in finding that the plaintiffs' need for the material outweighed the expert's privacy interests and did not require Plaintiffs to retain another expert. (Id. at 641-642.)

The Court described the "ethical interests" at issue in Randy's Trucking as concerns over test confidentiality--mental health professionals license copyrighted tests from companies to diagnose patients. Accurate diagnosis depends on the patient's ignorance of the test questions and parameters. (Randy's Trucking, Inc. v. Superior Ct., supra, 91 Cal.App.5th at 837.) The "ethical interests" are a hybrid of medical ethics, copyright, and contractual concerns. Importantly, the Randy's Trucking Court did not reject Randy's Trucking's proposal at all.

It found that the trial court's determination that the plaintiffs' cross-examination concern and the fact that they did not have a retained expert outweighed the defendant's expert's confidentiality concerns was not an abuse of discretion. This case is different from Randy's Trucking because Plaintiffs have a psychiatrist expert. Plaintiffs propose two options for resolving this issue: (1) require Defendants' expert to sign a declaration stating that the data will be disclosed to Plaintiffs' attorney by Plaintiffs' psychologist; or (2) order the complete release.

Plaintiffs rely on Randy's Trucking to argue that the Court should order the data to be turned over completely, but they provide no justification for the affidavit, except that Dr. Thames' declaration offers production only to a "retained psychologist, neuropsychologist, and/or neurologist expert." Plaintiffs believe that their expert, a physician and psychiatrist, does not qualify, but do not explain why a psychiatrist's ethical obligations would be different from Dr. Thames' ethical obligations.

Here, the Court agrees with the logic of the trial court in Randy's Trucking to the extent that it will not require Plaintiffs to retain an expert specifically to receive the data. (Randy's Trucking, Inc. v. Superior Ct., supra, 91 Cal.App.5th at 838 ["But as plaintiffs assert, they should not be forced to retain an expert to gain access to these materials. . ."].) Like Dr. Thames, Dr. Rosenburg treats mental health conditions and likely has a sufficient understanding of the ethical concerns about disclosing test materials to treat copyrighted test materials appropriately.

The Court orders Global-Dining to disclose the raw test data to Dr. Rosenburg without Plaintiffs' declaration, but under the proposed protective order. The Court will not interfere with Dr.

Rosenburg's professional discretion after he receives the data. The audio recording of the exam is a different matter. Under California law, such a recording must be made available to the patient. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 2032.530(a).) The patient may then share that information with whomever she chooses.

Conclusion

The Motion to Compel Independent Medical Examination is GRANTED. The parties are ordered to file a joint order containing the complete terms of the medical examinations pursuant to this order and the August 14, 2026, IDC by August 31, 2026, for the Court's signature. Case Number: 26SMCV00778 Hearing Date: August 27, 2026 Dept: P Tentative Ruling John Young, et al. v. Shopify, Inc., et al.; Case No. 26SMCV00778 Motions: (1) Shopify's Demurrer (2) Saunabox's Demurrer with Motion to Strike Hearing Date: August 27, 2026 Background Plaintiffs John Young and Joious Young ("the Youngs") sue Defendants Shopify, Inc.; Shopify (USA), Inc.; Shopify Payments (USA), Inc. ("Shopify"); and Saunabox LLC ("Saunabox") for strict products liability and negligence based on design defects, manufacturing defects, or Defendants' failure to warn.

The Youngs allege that on April 21, 2025, John Young was using a portable sauna designed and manufactured by Saunabox when it sprayed him with scalding water and steam, burning him, and causing severe emotional distress to John Young's daughter, Joiuous Young, who was nearby. (First Amended Complaint ("FAC"), P.P. 1-2.) The Youngs allege that Shopify distributed and sold the portable sauna through its e-commerce platform, which hosts Saunabox's website. (Complaint, P. 25-28.) On February 11, 2026, The Youngs filed the initial complaint.

On March 6, 2026, the Youngs filed the FAC. On March 27, 2026, the Youngs and Shopify filed a stipulation to extend Shopify's demurrer deadline to April 30, 2026. On April 30, 2026, Shopify filed its demurrer. On May 4,