Vincent Lara vs. Alexis Paige Lewis

34-2023-00336808-CU-FR-GDS: Vincent Lara vs. Alexis Paige Lewis 04/23/2025 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Request for Production of Documents in Department 54

Tentative Ruling

NOTICE:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that any oral arguments regarding this tentative ruling will be heard in Department 28, located at 720 9th Street, Sacramento, CA, the Hon. Richard C. Miadich presiding. Should argument be requested by either party, the requesting party must call the Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-2615, by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the hearing, request the hearing, and notify the opposing party of the location and time of hearing pursuant to Local Rule 1.06.

Any party who wishes to contest the tentative ruling below must:

(1) request a hearing by calling the Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-2615, by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the noticed hearing date, and leave a voicemail message (a) identifying themselves as the party requesting oral argument; (b) indicating the specific matter/motion for which they are requesting oral argument; and (c) confirming that they have notified the opposing party of their intention to appear; and

(2) advise the opposing party of the location and time of hearing pursuant to Local Rule 1.06.

If a hearing is not requested by 4:00 p.m. on the Court day before the noticed hearing date, the tentative ruling will become the final order of the Court.

If a hearing is requested, the Court prefers in-person attendance by the parties. However, parties may appear by Zoom unless the Court specifically orders in-person attendance. Parties choosing to appear by Zoom are reminded, however, that a Zoom appearance is still a formal appearance before the Court. Parties appearing via Zoom should do so from a quiet location, free from undue distractions, and wear attire suitable for an in-person court appearance.

The parties may join the Zoom session for hearing on the tentative ruling by audio and/or video through the following link:

https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept28

SIP Address:

16039062174@sip.zoomgov.com

(833) 568-8864

34-2023-00336808-CU-FR-GDS: Vincent Lara vs. Alexis Paige Lewis 04/23/2025 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Request for Production of Documents in Department 54

ID: 16039062174

Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf. Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp- 13.Pdf

A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.

Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will be forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant Alexis Lewis’s (“Defendant”) motion to compel Plaintiff Joseph Lara (“Plaintiff” or “Joseph”) to serve further responses to Defendant’s Request for Production of Documents, Set One is ruled upon as follows.

This action was filed on March 23, 2023 by Joseph and Plaintiff Vincent Lara (“Vincent”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) alleging causes of action for intentional interference with expected inheritance and declaratory relief. Joseph is an attorney and is representing himself and Vincent in this matter. Plaintiffs allege that Defendant befriended their father, Alan Lara (“Alan”), in 2019 and since then “engaged in a scheme to defraud Alan of money,” including through “fraud, manipulation, undue influence and duress.” (Complaint, ¶ 12.)

Plaintiffs allege that after Alan died in 2022, they learned that in August of 2021, Alan had changed the beneficiary designation on an annuity account from 50% to Vincent and 50% to Joseph to 80% to Defendant, 10% to Vincent, and 10% to Joseph. Plaintiffs allege that Defendant stole Alan’s computer login credentials and changed the beneficiary designation herself by forging Alan’s electronic signature.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2023-00336808-CU-FR-GDS: Vincent Lara vs. Alexis Paige Lewis 04/23/2025 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Request for Production of Documents in Department 54

On October 3, 2024, Defendant served Joseph with Defendant’s Request for Production of Documents, Set One, which consisted of 19 requests. Joseph served responses on November 5, 2024. On November 26, 2024, Defendant’s counsel sent a meet and confer letter. On December 18, 2024 at 10:04 a.m., after not receiving a response to the letter, Defendant’s counsel sent a follow up email stating that since she had not heard back, she would be filing a motion to compel further responses. The email also stated, “If you would like to try to resolve these issues informally, please contact me right away.” (Gestri Decl., Exh. D.) Defendant filed this motion on December 19, 2024. The motion seeks further responses to request nos. 1-4, 6-9, 11-14, and 19.

With his opposition, Joseph declares that he received the November 26, 2024 letter the date it was sent, but notes that this was two days before Thanksgiving, and on Thanksgiving Day, Joseph made the decision to leave his prior law firm. Thus, Joseph declares that he was “absolutely consumed with preparing all my files to be transferred to another handling attorney within the firm,” and he “thus neglected to address Ms. Gestri’s letter prior to my departure.” (Lara Decl., ¶ 3.) Joseph’s last day with his prior firm was December 16, 2024, two days before the follow up email was sent.

Joseph declares that he did not receive a phone call from Defendant’s counsel prior to the motion being filed, but had he, he would have provided an extension for any motion to compel to be filed until after he had completed his job transition. Between February 5 and April 4, 2025, the parties met and conferred regarding the issues presented in this motion. Joseph declares that he has made copies of all non-privileged and responsive documents, including Alan’s cell phone, available to Defendant for copying.

Joseph further declares that although Defendant’s counsel has stated a copy service would contact him, he has not received any such contact.

In reply, Defendant contends that Joseph only identified some vague responsive documents after the motion was filed but has never identified specific documents or a privilege log. Despite this, Defendant asserts that she has arranged for a copy service to go to Joseph’s home in Southern California on April 28, 2025 to copy documents and download text messages from Alan’s cell phone.

Joseph’s responses can be grouped into three categories: (1) objections based on overbreadth and relevance, attorney-client privilege, work product, “or any other applicable privilege,” followed by a statement that Joseph “will produce all non-privileged documents that are responsive to this request” (request nos. 1-4, 6, and 8-9); (2) the same series of objections only (request nos. 7 and 11-14); and (3) the same series of objections followed by a statement that Joseph “is aware of a will prepared by Alan Lara’s attorney before the time of Alan Lara’s death, which Alan Lara never signed,” and it is therefore being withheld “pursuant to privilege” (request no. 19).

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2023-00336808-CU-FR-GDS: Vincent Lara vs. Alexis Paige Lewis 04/23/2025 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Request for Production of Documents in Department 54

A party who objects to a request for production of documents must “[i]dentify with particularity any document, tangible thing, land, or electronically stored information falling within any category of item in the demand to which an objection is being made.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.240(b)(1).) Other than his response to request no. 19, Joseph’s responses fail to comply with this requirement, as no withheld documents are identified despite objections being asserted to each request. Additionally, an objection must “[s]et forth clearly the extent of, and the specific ground for, the objection.

If an objection is based on a claim of privilege, the particular privilege invoked shall be stated.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.240(b)(3).) All of Joseph’s responses violate this section, as he asserts an objection based on “any other applicable privilege.” Further, to the extent Joseph properly asserts privilege objections, he fails to provide any factual information to enable other parties to evaluate the merits of the privilege claim as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.240(c)(1).

This requires, at a minimum, identifying the documents which are being withheld based on privilege, and in this case would appear to require a privilege log.

Additionally, Joseph’s responses that include statements of compliance violate Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.220, which requires a statement of compliance to state that the requested production “will be allowed either in whole or in part, and that all documents or things in the demanded category that are in the possession, custody, or control of that party and to which no objection is being made will be included in the production.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.220, emphasis added.) Here, Joseph’s statements of compliance ambiguously state that the demand will be allowed in whole, since Joseph state he will produce “all” responsive documents, but also indicates that documents are being withheld based on privilege.

Moreover, Joseph fails to state that he is producing all documents in his possession, custody, or control and to which he is not objecting. Although Joseph’s opposition cites to this statute, he does not explain how he has complied with it. Joseph suggests that he identified documents during the post-motion meet and confer, but that is not the same as identifying documents in sworn responses, and the assertion is not supported by the emails attached to Joseph’s declaration, as no specific documents are identified.

Joseph’s opposition also argues that Defendant’s requests fail to designate the documents or categories of documents to be produced as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.030(c)(1). This objection was not asserted in Joseph’s responses, so it is waived.

Based on the discussion in the preceding three paragraphs, Defendant’s motion is GRANTED as to request nos. 1-4, 6-9, and 11-14.

Regarding request no. 19, Joseph’s objection based on “any other applicable privilege” is overruled for the reasons discussed above. As for the attorney-client privilege objection, Defendant contends that the unsigned will identified in the response falls under Evidence Code

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2023-00336808-CU-FR-GDS: Vincent Lara vs. Alexis Paige Lewis 04/23/2025 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Request for Production of Documents in Department 54

section 957 and is thus discoverable. Joseph’s opposition does not address request no.

19. It is unclear if Joseph has agreed to make the unsigned will available along with the other documents following the post-motion meet and confer. Even so, the Court deems Joseph’s failure to address the request and the privilege issue as a concession on the merits. (D.I. Chadbourne, Inc. v. Superior Court (1964) 60 Cal.2d 723, 728, fn. 4 [where nonmoving party fails to oppose a ground for a motion “it is assumed that [nonmoving party] concedes” that ground].) Accordingly, a further response stating that the document will be produced is warranted. Defendant’s motion is therefore GRANTED as to request no.

19.

To the extent Defendant seeks to compel Joseph’s production of documents, the motion is DENIED as premature and/or unsupported by the authorities cited in Defendant’s motion. Where a party responds to a request for production with a statement of compliance but thereafter fails to comply, the propounding party “may move for an order compelling compliance.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.320(a).) Defendant does not cite this statute in her moving papers. Since the motion is otherwise granted, if Joseph fails to permit the inspection or copying of documents as stated in his statements of compliance with his further responses pursuant to this motion, then Defendant may move to compel compliance under section 2031.320(a).

Defendant’s request for sanctions is GRANTED in the amount of $1,060, representing four hours at $250 per hour plus the $60 filing fee.

Joseph shall serve verified further responses and pay the sanctions by no later than May 14, 2025, or a later date agreed to by the parties in writing.

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1019.5; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1312.)