WILLIAMSON vs BACO REALTY CORPORATION, et al.

26CV192831: WILLIAMSON vs BACO REALTY CORPORATION, et al. 09/03/2026 Hearing on Motion for Protective Order filed by Baco Realty Corporation (Defendant) + CRS# 640626731431 in Department 15

Tentative Ruling - 08/31/2026 Peter Borkon

The Motion for Protective Order filed by Baco LLC, Baco Realty Corporation on 07/31/2026 is Granted.

Plaintiff Melissa Williamson filed this case against Baco Realty Corporation, Baco LLC (collectively, “Baco”), Security Public Storage-Richmond LLC, and other individual defendants on 10/30/2024 in the Superior Court of San Francisco. On 8/19/2025, the San Francisco Superior Court granted the defendants’ joint motion to transfer venue to Alameda County. For reasons the Court need not address in this order, the transfer was not completed until 6/4/2026.

On 7/31/2026, Baco filed this motion for a protective order pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) sections 2030.090, 2031.060, and 2033.080. For the reasons discussed below, the motion is GRANTED.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff filed the operative First Amended Complaint while this case was still pending transfer to Alameda County. Baco represents that Defendants have agreed to stipulate to allow Plaintiff to file a Second Amended Complaint; once that pleading is filed, Defendants will file a demurrer. (McDonough Decl. ¶¶ 3-4, Ex. I.) Plaintiff appears to confirm this agreement (see Williamson Decl. ¶ 5), although the Court notes that on 8/11/2026, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file the Second Amended Complaint (scheduled for 10/29/2026) and to date, no stipulation has been filed.

Baco requests an order extending its statutory 30-day deadline to respond to eight sets of discovery served by Plaintiff on 7/5/2026, until 30 days after service of notice of entry of the order ruling on Defendants’ anticipated demurrer to the SAC.

Under CCP sections 2030.090, 2031.060, and 2033.080, the Court may, for good cause shown, “make any order that justice requires to protect any party from unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden and expense,” including extending the moving party’s time to respond to discovery.

Baco contends that a protective order is appropriate because Plaintiff’s causes of action in this case have already been determined in prior litigation filed by Plaintiff in Alameda County Superior Court Case HG21102102, and Plaintiff’s claims are otherwise legally insufficient. Baco contends that a delay is proper because the demurrer is likely to be potentially dispositive of this case and Baco should not be required to respond to requests for admissions that ask Baco to admit dispositive merits facts until Plaintiff’s claims have been tested for legal sufficiency.

Baco further notes that Defendants have “produced hundreds of pages and responded to scores of 26CV192831: WILLIAMSON vs BACO REALTY CORPORATION, et al. 09/03/2026 Hearing on Motion for Protective Order filed by Baco Realty Corporation (Defendant) + CRS# 640626731431 in Department 15 questions” from Plaintiff in the related cases addressing the same issue presented here: Plaintiff’s rental of two storage units at Security Public Storage-Hayward.

Plaintiff opposes the requested protective order on the grounds that Baco has not adequately justified the requested stay, did not “promptly move” for a protective order once Plaintiff served the discovery on 7/6/2026, and Baco did not properly meet and conferred in person, or by phone or videoconference before filing this motion; expresses concerns that the proposed extension is uncertain because the demurrer has not yet been filed, noting Baco has not yet responded to the operative First Amended Complaint (though the Court notes that Plaintiff has continued to seek Baco’s default while this dispute is pending); and other grounds, including that the pending discovery is relevant to Plaintiff’s claims, the parties have not yet executed the stipulation to file the Second Amended Complaint (points that are conceded by Baco), that Baco’s request is not sufficiently request-specific, and that Baco’s motion improperly cites to discovery that was collectively produced by all Defendants (not just Baco). Plaintiff contends that if the Court decides a stay is appropriate, it should be request-specific.

The Court finds good cause to grant Baco’s request. The Court is familiar with the nature and scope of the issues in this case and its similarity to cases filed by Plaintiff in this Court and other counties, both past and pending. The Court further notes that a pending motion to consolidate this case with Williamson v. Security Public Storage Richmond LLC, 24CV085335, is set for 12/17/2026. Discovery in that case has been heavily and persistently litigated, and an order consolidating these two cases is likely to provide additional support for coordinated discovery efforts to minimize duplication and to avoid overtaxing judicial and party resources.

The motion is GRANTED. The Court extends Baco’s statutory deadline to respond to the discovery requests enumerated in the motion until 30 days after the Court rules on a demurrer to the anticipated Second Amended Complaint.