ESTELLE’S BAKING COMPANY LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY vs DEMOSTHENES JOHN KAUFMAN AND MARIA THERESA KAUFMAN, TRUSTEES OF THE DJKM TRUST DATED FEBRUARY 23, 2000, et al.

23CV012093: ESTELLE'S BAKING COMPANY LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY vs DEMOSTHENES JOHN KAUFMAN AND MARIA THERESA KAUFMAN, TRUSTEES OF THE DJKM TRUST DATED FEBRUARY 23, 2000, et al. 09/10/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Demand for Inspection, Set One in Department 16C

Tentative Ruling

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendants John Joseph Kaufman and Kathryn Maria O’Connell, Trustees of the DJKM Trust dated February 23, 2000’s (“Defendants”) motion to compel Plaintiff Estelle’s Baking Company, LLC’s (“Plaintiff”) further responses to demands for inspection, set one, is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows.

This is a dispute about a commercial lease for a bakery. Plaintiff alleges in the operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) that it entered into a written lease with Defendants on March 1, 2021. (FAC ¶ 13.) Plaintiff believed that net profits of approximately $20,000 per month were possible at the location, justifying the tenant improvements needed to operate as a bakery. (Id. ¶¶ 11, 12.) Plaintiff alleges that, during construction of their improvements, substantial issues with the structure were found. (Id. ¶ 19.) As alleged, Defendant failed to properly complete the repairs, in breach of the lease. (Id. ¶¶ 22–35.) Plaintiff commenced this action on November 21, 2023. The FAC asserts four causes of action: (1) breach of contract; (2) breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (3) declaratory relief; and (4) concealment.

Defendants served their demands for inspection, set one, on July 2, 2026, seeking the production of documents relevant to the claims and defenses in this action. (Gonzalez Decl. ¶ 4.) On July 31, the parties mutually agreed to extend all pending discovery deadlines by seven calendar days. (Id. ¶5.) Plaintiff served their response to the demand along with approximately 2,200 pages of documents on August 11. (Id. ¶ 6.) Plaintiff’s response to Demands Nos. 8, 12, 14, 18, 20, and 22 consisted entirely of objections. (Id. ¶ 7; Sep. Statement.)

Defendants filed this motion to compel on August 17. Defendants request a court order compelling further response to their Demands Nos. 8, 12, 14, 18, and 20, the production of all responsive documents, and $3,077.50 in monetary sanctions.

Plaintiff opposes the motion.

23CV012093: ESTELLE'S BAKING COMPANY LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY vs DEMOSTHENES JOHN KAUFMAN AND MARIA THERESA KAUFMAN, TRUSTEES OF THE DJKM TRUST DATED FEBRUARY 23, 2000, et al. 09/10/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Demand for Inspection, Set One in Department 16C

Trial was originally set in this matter for September 8, 2026. During the pendency of this motion, this Court, Assistant Presiding Judge Steven M. Gevercer presiding in Department 17A, granted Defendants’ motion to continue trial. Trial is now set for January 25, 2027.

Meet & Confer

Plaintiff opposes the motion on the grounds that Defendants filed their motion before completing a reasonable meet-and-confer process. (Opp. at p. 6:11–12.) Plaintiff cites Clement v. Alegre, (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 1277, for the proposition that conferral must be more than mere onesided argument.

Plaintiff served their written response and from 1,600 to 2,200 pages of documents at approximately 11:22 p.m. on Tuesday, August 11, 2026. (Gonzalez Decl. ¶ 6; Fillmore Decl. ¶ 6.) The deadline for filing a motion to compel based on the initial trial date was Monday, August 17. (Gonzalez Decl. ¶ 9.) Defendants’ counsel reviewed the production over two days and called Plaintiff’s counsel on August 14, identifying “concerns regarding deficient discovery responses, missing responsive documents, and the absence of verifications.” (Ibid.)

During the phone call, Defendants’ counsel did not identify any specific demands she contended were deficient or propose specific supplemental production. (Fillmore Decl. ¶ 10.) Defendants’ counsel sent a meet-and-confer letter via email at approximately 5:31 p.m. on Friday, August 14. (Gonzalez Decl. ¶ 11.) Plaintiff’s counsel refused requests to extend the motion-filing deadline past August 17. (Gonzalez Decl. ¶¶ 9–10, 14; Fillmore Decl. ¶¶ 11, 16.) Defendants filed this motion to compel on Monday, August 17.

Meet-and-confer efforts must be reasonable under the circumstances. (Clement, supra, 177 Cal.App.4th at p. 1294 [quoting Obregon v. Super. Ct. (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 424].) The Court finds Defendants’ meet-and-confer efforts to be reasonable in light of the short timeline to review a substantial production before a deadline for discovery motions as detailed above.

Timeliness

The parties dispute whether Plaintiff’s August 11, 2026, response and document production

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV012093: ESTELLE'S BAKING COMPANY LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY vs DEMOSTHENES JOHN KAUFMAN AND MARIA THERESA KAUFMAN, TRUSTEES OF THE DJKM TRUST DATED FEBRUARY 23, 2000, et al. 09/10/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Demand for Inspection, Set One in Department 16C

were timely. A party who fails to timely respond waives any objection to the demand. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (a).)

Defendants served their demand by email on July 2, 2026. (Gonzalez Decl. ¶ 4.) Generally, a response to a demand for inspection must be served within 30 days of the demand. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.260, subd. (a).) Electronic service extends the response time by two court days. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1010.6, subd. (a)(3)(B).) Further, the parties agreed to extend the response deadline by seven calendar days. (Gonzalez Decl. ¶ 5., Exh. C; see Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.270)

Based on these facts, the deadline to respond to Defendants’ demand was Tuesday, August 11, 2026. Thirty days from July 2, 2026, was Saturday, August 1. Two court days after Saturday, August 1 was Tuesday, August 4. And seven calendar days from Tuesday, August 4 was Tuesday August 11, the date Plaintiff served its responses.

However, despite serving responses within the calendar timeline, Plaintiff’s responses were unverified. (Gonzalez Decl. ¶ 6, Exh. E.) Unverified factual responses are considered untimely. (Food 4 Less Supermarkets, Inc. v. Super. Ct. (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 651, 657–658.) But objections served within the calendar timeline are timely and are not waived, whether or not the responses are verified. (Id. at p. 658.)

Defendants move to compel further responses where Plaintiff responded solely with objections. Because the objections were served within the calendar time period, the objections were timely served and are not waived.

Mootness

Plaintiff’s counsel declares that Plaintiff served an additional approximately 265 pages of documents on August 20, 2026, “after requesting and receiving agreement from Defendants’ counsel regarding confidential document designation.” (Fillmore Decl. ¶¶ 18–19.) Plaintiff argues that this supplemental production moots part of Defendants’ motion. (Opp. at p. 7:11– 27.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV012093: ESTELLE'S BAKING COMPANY LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY vs DEMOSTHENES JOHN KAUFMAN AND MARIA THERESA KAUFMAN, TRUSTEES OF THE DJKM TRUST DATED FEBRUARY 23, 2000, et al. 09/10/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Demand for Inspection, Set One in Department 16C

Belated service of responses does not render a motion to compel discovery moot. (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 405– 406; see Cal. Rules of Court, rule 1348(a).) The moving party is entitled to a ruling once the motion is made. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 1005.5.) The moving party has the privilege of withdrawing or maintaining its motion, and in fact, Defendants contend that the supplemental production did not cure any deficiencies. (Reply at pp. 2–3.)

Responses to Demands

Defendants’ move for an order requiring Plaintiff to provide further responses to Demand Nos. 8, 12, 14, 18, and 20. Plaintiff’s initial responses to these Demands consisted solely of objections. (See Sep. Statement.)

“In the absence of contrary court order, a civil litigant’s right to discovery is broad [and] statutes governing discovery ‘must be construed liberally in favor of disclosure unless the request is clearly improper by virtue of well-established causes for denial.’” (Williams v. Super. Ct. (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 541; see also Greyhound Corp. v. Super. Ct. (1961) 56 Cal.2d 355, 378 [“disclosure is a matter of right unless statutory or public policy considerations clearly prohibit it”].) Nevertheless, while the scope of civil discovery is broad, it is not limitless. (Bd. of Registered Nursing v. Super. Ct. (2021) 59 Cal.App.5th 1011, 1039.)

A party seeking to resist discovery based on objections has the burden to justify its particular objections. (Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Super. Ct. (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255.) When objecting to a response, the party must “identify with particularity any document” falling within any category of item in the demand. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.240, subd. (b).) If the objection is based on a privilege, the response “shall provide sufficient factual information for other parties to evaluate the merits of that claim.” (Id., § 2031.240, subd. (c.)

DEMAND FOR INSPECTION NO. 8:

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV012093: ESTELLE'S BAKING COMPANY LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY vs DEMOSTHENES JOHN KAUFMAN AND MARIA THERESA KAUFMAN, TRUSTEES OF THE DJKM TRUST DATED FEBRUARY 23, 2000, et al. 09/10/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Demand for Inspection, Set One in Department 16C

Produce all DOCUMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS that RELATE TO the STRUCTURAL REPAIRS to the PROPERTY.

(Sep. Statement at p. 4.) Plaintiff alleges that it requested to terminate the lease after waiting over a year for Defendants to complete repairs. (FAC ¶ 36.) What repairs were performed, whether repairs were performed, and communications about repairs are relevant to this action.

Plaintiff responded:

Responding Party incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections as though fully set forth herein. Responding Party objects as follows on the grounds: this demand is overbroad and unduly burdensome because it seeks “all” documents and communications relating to STRUCTURAL REPAIRS without reasonable limitation as to time, custodian, contractor, consultant, or category; this demand calls for information that may be confidential, proprietary, or commercially sensitive; and this demand calls for information protected by the attorney, client privilege and attorney work, product doctrine.

Responding Party further objects to the request to the extent that it seeks irrelevant information and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Responding Party further objects to the request as overbroad as to time and scope and to the extent it seeks information which is not relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The request fails to reasonably describe or particularize the items sought.

(Sep. Statement at p. 4.) The Court parses these objections (some stated multiple times) as including objections that Demand No. 8 is

 overbroad and unduly burdensome; without reasonable limitation  seeks confidential, proprietary, or commercially sensitive information  seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege and attorney work product doctrine  outside scope of discovery (irrelevant information or not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence)  vague or nonspecific

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV012093: ESTELLE'S BAKING COMPANY LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY vs DEMOSTHENES JOHN KAUFMAN AND MARIA THERESA KAUFMAN, TRUSTEES OF THE DJKM TRUST DATED FEBRUARY 23, 2000, et al. 09/10/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Demand for Inspection, Set One in Department 16C

Overbreadth

The objection of overbreadth is not proper unless the party shows that the request imposes an undue burden. This showing must be particular as to the amount of work required. (Williams v. Super. Ct. (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 549–550.) Plaintiff’s response contains no estimate of what a search for this information might entail and indeed no facts at all. Plaintiff’s objections for overbreadth or undue burden are overruled.

Confidential, proprietary information

Plaintiff provides no factual information for the Court to assess. It appears that the parties have mutually agreed on a method for handling sensitive or confidential information, and that some documents have been produced accordingly. (Fillmore Decl. ¶ 18 [“agreement from Defendants’ counsel regarding confidential document designation”].) Plaintiff’s objection is best addressed by the confidential document handling agreement and is otherwise overruled. Plaintiff may also move for a protective order.

Privileged information

Plaintiff asserts again, without any factual basis, that some information is subject to attorneyclient or attorney work product protection. To the extent any responsive documents have been withheld from production on these bases, Plaintiff must comply with the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.240, subdivisions (b) and (c), including preparing a detailed privilege log. Plaintiff’s objection is otherwise overruled.

Outside the scope of discovery

Demand No. 8 is aimed directly at a core issue in this action. It is unlikely that any responsive document would be irrelevant. Plaintiff’s objection is overruled.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV012093: ESTELLE'S BAKING COMPANY LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY vs DEMOSTHENES JOHN KAUFMAN AND MARIA THERESA KAUFMAN, TRUSTEES OF THE DJKM TRUST DATED FEBRUARY 23, 2000, et al. 09/10/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Demand for Inspection, Set One in Department 16C

Insufficiently specific, vague, and ambiguous

An objection for vagueness is only proper where the request is so ambiguous that the responding party cannot provide an intelligent response. (Cembrook v. Super. Ct. (1961) 56 Cal.2d 423, 430.) Demand No. 8 is discrete and specific, incorporating defined terms. Plaintiff’s objection is overruled.

Plaintiff shall prepare further responses to Demand No. 8, as stated.

DEMAND FOR INSPECTION NO. 12:

Produce all DOCUMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS that RELATE TO the financial performance of YOUR other ESTELLE locations from January 1, 2021 to the present.

(Sep. Statement at p. 5.) Plaintiff alleges that “[b]ased on Plaintiff’s research, previous experience and history with other Estelle’s locations, and profitability analysis, Plaintiff believed that net profits of approximately $20,000 per month were possible at this location.” (FAC ¶ 12.) The financial performance of Plaintiff’s other locations is at issue in this action.

Plaintiff responded:

Responding Party incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections as though fully set forth herein. Responding Party objects as follows on the grounds: this demand seeks confidential, proprietary, and commercially sensitive financial information concerning other ESTELLE locations; this demand is overbroad, unduly burdensome, and not proportional to the needs of the case to the extent it seeks financial performance documents for locations other than the PROPERTY from January 1, 2021 to the present without limitation to documents relevant to the alleged lost profits or damages at issue; and this demand calls for

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV012093: ESTELLE'S BAKING COMPANY LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY vs DEMOSTHENES JOHN KAUFMAN AND MARIA THERESA KAUFMAN, TRUSTEES OF THE DJKM TRUST DATED FEBRUARY 23, 2000, et al. 09/10/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Demand for Inspection, Set One in Department 16C

information not relevant to any claim or defense except to the limited extent comparative financial information bears on claimed damages. Responding Party further objects to the request to the extent that it seeks irrelevant information and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Responding Party further objects to the request as overbroad as to scope and to the extent it seeks information which is not relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Responding Party further objects to the extent that the request seeks information that violates Responding Party’s and/or third parties’ privacy rights under the California Constitution.

(Sep. Statement at p. 6.) The objections are

 seeks confidential, proprietary, or commercially sensitive information;  overbroad and unduly burdensome, not proportional to the extent it is not limited to documents relevant to the alleged lost profits or damages at issue;  outside the scope of discovery except to the limited extent financial information bears on claimed damages;  outside the scope of discovery, generally (irrelevant information or not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence);  seeks information that violates Plaintiff’s and/or third parties’ privacy rights under the California Constitution

The Court overrules the objections for confidential information and general scope in the same manner and for the same reasons as stated for Demand No. 8 above.

Overbreadth and outside scope of discovery outside of claimed damages

The Court finds that Demand No. 12 is moderately overbroad or outside the scope of discovery to the extent it seeks documents related to Plaintiff’s financial performance that have no bearing on the damages Plaintiff claims. For instance, Demand No. 12 could be read to require the production of individual customer receipts or daily inventory orders. These documents are not relevant to the issues, at least not without a more particular need shown by Defendants. Still, this is not a reason to completely deny production. Plaintiff should have responded to Demand No. 12 by agreeing to produce all documents supporting its assertion of reasonable financial

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV012093: ESTELLE'S BAKING COMPANY LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY vs DEMOSTHENES JOHN KAUFMAN AND MARIA THERESA KAUFMAN, TRUSTEES OF THE DJKM TRUST DATED FEBRUARY 23, 2000, et al. 09/10/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Demand for Inspection, Set One in Department 16C

expectations, which Plaintiff has put at issue in this case.

Plaintiff’s or third parties’ privacy rights

A corporation does not have a constitutional privacy right. (SCC Acquisitions, Inc. v. Super. Ct. (2015) 243 Cal.App.4th 741, 755–756.) Plaintiff provides no facts on which the Court or Defendants can assess this objection. If Plaintiff’s objection has merit, it can be addressed by the parties’ confidential document handling agreement. The objection is otherwise overruled. Plaintiff may also move for a protective order.

Plaintiff shall prepare further responses to Demand No. 12, as stated.

DEMAND FOR INSPECTION NO. 14:

Produce all DOCUMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS that RELATE TO YOUR request to terminate the LEASE

(Sep. Statement at p. 8.) Plaintiff alleges that they requested termination of the lease and that Defendants have refused. (FAC ¶¶ 36, 38.) Lease termination is an issue in this action.

Plaintiff responded:

Responding Party incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections as though fully set forth herein. Responding Party objects as follows on the grounds: this demand is overbroad and unduly burdensome to the extent it seeks “all” documents and communications relating to Responding Party’s request to terminate the LEASE without reasonable limitation as to time, custodian, or category; this demand calls for information protected by the attorney, client privilege and attorney work, product doctrine, including communications with counsel regarding termination of the LEASE. This request is duplicative of

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV012093: ESTELLE'S BAKING COMPANY LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY vs DEMOSTHENES JOHN KAUFMAN AND MARIA THERESA KAUFMAN, TRUSTEES OF THE DJKM TRUST DATED FEBRUARY 23, 2000, et al. 09/10/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Demand for Inspection, Set One in Department 16C

demand for inspection no. 13.

(Sep. Statement at p. 9.) The objections are

 overbroad and unduly burdensome; without reasonable limitation;  seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege and attorney work product doctrine;  duplicative

The Court overrules the objections for overbreadth and privilege in the same manner and for the same reasons as stated for Demand No. 8 above.

Duplicative

This is not a proper objection on which to refuse production. If a document is responsive to more than one demand, Plaintiff can simply note that in its response or production. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.280, subd. (a).)

Plaintiff shall prepare further responses to Demand No. 14, as stated.

DEMAND FOR INSPECTION NO. 18:

Produce all DOCUMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS that RELATE TO YOUR FINANCIAL CONDITION from January 1, 2020 to the present.

(Sep. Statement at p. 10.) “’FINANCIAL CONDITION’ means and refers to Plaintiff’s overall financial status, including without limitation income, expenses, assets, liabilities, revenues, profits, losses, cash flow, and net worth.” (Sep. Statement at p. 3.) Just as with Demand No. 12 above, Plaintiff’s financial condition is at issue to the extent it bears on alleged damages.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV012093: ESTELLE'S BAKING COMPANY LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY vs DEMOSTHENES JOHN KAUFMAN AND MARIA THERESA KAUFMAN, TRUSTEES OF THE DJKM TRUST DATED FEBRUARY 23, 2000, et al. 09/10/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Demand for Inspection, Set One in Department 16C

Plaintiff responded:

Responding Party incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections as though fully set forth herein. Responding Party objects as follows on the grounds: this demand seeks confidential, proprietary, and commercially sensitive financial information; this demand is overbroad, unduly burdensome, and not proportional to the needs of the case because it seeks “all” documents and communications relating to Responding Party’s FINANCIAL CONDITION from January 1, 2020 to the present without limitation to documents relevant to the claims, defenses, or damages alleged in this action; and this demand calls for information protected by the attorney, client privilege and attorney work, product doctrine to the extent it seeks counsel’s financial analyses or litigation strategy.

Responding Party further objects to the request as overbroad as to scope and to the extent it seeks information which is not relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Responding Party further objects to the extent that the request seeks information that violates Responding Party’s and/or third parties’ privacy rights under the California Constitution.

(Sep. Statement at pp. 9–10.) The objections are

 seeks confidential, proprietary, or commercially sensitive information;  overbroad and unduly burdensome, not proportional to the extent it is not limited to documents relevant to the alleged lost profits or damages at issue;  seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege and attorney work product doctrine;  outside scope of discovery, generally (irrelevant information or not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence);  seeks information that violates Plaintiff’s and/or third parties’ privacy rights under the California Constitution

The Court overrules Plaintiff’s objections for confidential information, general overbreadth, privilege, and privacy in the same manner and for the same reasons as stated above. But similar to Demand No. 12, Demand No. 18 is moderately overbroad or outside the scope of discovery to the extent it seeks documents that have no bearing on the damages Plaintiff claims. Still, Plaintiff should have agreed to produce documents relevant to Demand No.

18.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV012093: ESTELLE'S BAKING COMPANY LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY vs DEMOSTHENES JOHN KAUFMAN AND MARIA THERESA KAUFMAN, TRUSTEES OF THE DJKM TRUST DATED FEBRUARY 23, 2000, et al. 09/10/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Demand for Inspection, Set One in Department 16C

Plaintiff shall prepare further responses to Demand No. 18, as stated.

DEMAND FOR INSPECTION NO. 20:

Produce all DOCUMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS that RELATE TO any alternative locations YOU considered for a bakery from January 1, 2021 to the present.

(Sep. Statement at p. 13.) Defendants contend that this demand relates to their affirmative defense of failure to mitigate damages.

Plaintiff responded:

Responding Party incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections as though fully set forth herein. Responding Party objects as follows on the grounds: this demand seeks information that is not relevant to any claim or defense and is not proportional to the needs of the case to the extent it seeks “all” documents and communications relating to “any” alternative bakery locations that are unrelated to the PROPERTY, the LEASE, the alleged damages, or mitigation; this demand is overbroad and unduly burdensome because it seeks documents from January 1, 2021 to the present without reasonable limitation as to location, custodian, or category; and this demand calls for confidential, proprietary, and commercially sensitive business information.

Responding Party further objects to the request as overbroad as to scope and to the extent it seeks information which is not relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Responding Party further objects to the extent that the request seeks information that violates Responding Party’s and/or third parties’ privacy rights under the California Constitution.

(Sep. Statement at pp. 13–14.) The objections are

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV012093: ESTELLE'S BAKING COMPANY LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY vs DEMOSTHENES JOHN KAUFMAN AND MARIA THERESA KAUFMAN, TRUSTEES OF THE DJKM TRUST DATED FEBRUARY 23, 2000, et al. 09/10/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Demand for Inspection, Set One in Department 16C

 outside the scope of discovery, to the extent it goes beyond the affirmative defense;  overbroad and unduly burdensome; without reasonable limitation;  seeks confidential, proprietary, or commercially sensitive information;  outside the scope of discovery, generally (irrelevant information or not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence);  seeks information that violates Plaintiff’s and/or third parties’ privacy rights under the California Constitution

The Court finds that Demand No. 20 seeks a relatively focused set of documents related to Defendants’ affirmative defense. Plaintiff’s objections are overruled in the same manner and for the same reasons as stated above.

Plaintiff shall prepare further responses to Demand No. 20, as stated.

DEMAND FOR INSPECTION NO. 22:

Produce all DOCUMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS that support the allegations set forth in YOUR FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT.

(Sep. Statement at p. 15.) This demand seeks the documentary basis for Plaintiff’s causes of action.

Plaintiff responded:

Responding Party incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections as though fully set forth herein. Responding Party objects as follows on the grounds: this demand is overbroad, unduly burdensome, and not proportional to the needs of the case because it seeks “all” documents and communications that support every allegation in the FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT without limitation as to allegation, time period, custodian, or category; this demand is cumulative and duplicative of other demands seeking documents relating to the LEASE,

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV012093: ESTELLE'S BAKING COMPANY LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY vs DEMOSTHENES JOHN KAUFMAN AND MARIA THERESA KAUFMAN, TRUSTEES OF THE DJKM TRUST DATED FEBRUARY 23, 2000, et al. 09/10/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Demand for Inspection, Set One in Department 16C

PROPERTY, TENANT IMPROVEMENTS, STRUCTURAL REPAIRS, damages, notices, and concealment allegations; and this demand calls for information protected by the attorney, client privilege and attorney work, product doctrine to the extent it seeks counsel’s selection, compilation, or analysis of documents supporting claims.

(Sep. Statement at pp. 15–16.) The objections are:

 overbroad and unduly burdensome; without reasonable limitation;  duplicative and cumulative;  seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege and attorney work product doctrine

Demand No. 22 is duplicative by design and almost certainly seeks some privileged information, as Plaintiff suggests. But this does not justify responding purely by objection, at least not without substantial factual support. Plaintiff’s objections are overruled in the same manner and for the same reasons as stated above.

Plaintiff shall prepare further responses to Demand No. 22, as stated.

Production of Documents

Defendants ask the Court to compel not only Plaintiff’s further response to its demands but also the production of documents within seven days. (Mot. at p. 2:1–4.) The request for production of responsive documents is premature. An order compelling production will issue only after a party fails to produce “in accordance with that party’s statement.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.320, subd. (a).) Defendants have not moved for the production of any documents that Plaintiff already agreed to produce in its initial response.

Sanctions

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV012093: ESTELLE'S BAKING COMPANY LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY vs DEMOSTHENES JOHN KAUFMAN AND MARIA THERESA KAUFMAN, TRUSTEES OF THE DJKM TRUST DATED FEBRUARY 23, 2000, et al. 09/10/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Demand for Inspection, Set One in Department 16C

Defendants move for $3,077.50 in monetary sanctions, arguing that Plaintiff raised meritless objections and opposed this motion to compel without substantial justification. (MPA at pp. 13:21–14:10.) Plaintiff responds that it acted with substantial justification by serving timely responses to preserve objections, remaining open to meet and confer, and providing supplemental document production. (Opp. at p. 9:6–21.)

As discussed in detail above, Plaintiff’s discovery responses were substantially deficient. A code-compliant objection 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” and “[s]et forth clearly the extent of the objection.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.240, subd. (b).) An objection on the basis of privilege “shall provide sufficient factual information for other parties to evaluate the merits of that claim.” (Id., § 2031.240, subd. (c).)

Plaintiff’s responses were almost entirely conclusory. Further, although a boilerplate objection preserves the objection from involuntary waiver (Catalina Island Yacht Club v. Super. Ct. (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 116, 1129), a party must still justify its objections with particular facts when challenged on a motion to compel. (Coy v. Super. Ct. (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220–221.) Plaintiff’s opposition fails to do so. (See Opp. at p. 8.) On this basis, the Court finds that Plaintiff opposed this motion without substantial justification, mandating monetary sanctions. (Code Civ.

Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (h).)

Monetary sanctions in discovery are for the purpose of making an injured party whole and are limited to 'reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by anyone as a result of' misuse of discovery process. (Cornerstone Realty Advisors, LLC v. Summit Healthcare REIT, Inc. (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 771, 790.)

Defendants’ counsel declares that her rate is $355 per hour and that she spent not less than 8.5 hours preparing the motion papers. (Gonzalez Decl. ¶ 16.) Defendants also incurred a $60 filing fee for this motion.

In light of the Court’s ruling in favor of Plaintiff on some issues, the Court finds it justified to reduce the requested sanctions. Defendants’ request for monetary sanctions is GRANTED in the amount of $2,190 (6 hours at $355 per hour, plus filing fee).

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV012093: ESTELLE'S BAKING COMPANY LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY vs DEMOSTHENES JOHN KAUFMAN AND MARIA THERESA KAUFMAN, TRUSTEES OF THE DJKM TRUST DATED FEBRUARY 23, 2000, et al. 09/10/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Demand for Inspection, Set One in Department 16C

Disposition

As detailed above, Defendants’ motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

Plaintiff shall serve verified further responses to Demands Nos. 8, 12, 14, 18, 20, and 22 consistent with this order by no later than October 9, 2026. To the extent any responsive documents will be withheld based on the attorney-client privilege or attorney work product doctrine, Plaintiff shall provide a code-compliant privilege log.

Defendants’ request for monetary sanctions is GRANTED in part. The Court orders that Plaintiff is liable for and shall pay to Defendants a monetary sanction in the amount of $2,190. The monetary sanction shall be paid no later than October 9, 2026.

If the sanction is not paid by that date, Defendants may prepare for the Court's signature a formal order granting sanctions, which may itself be enforced in the same manner and with the same force and effect as a money judgment. (Newland v. Super. Ct. (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 608, 615 ['[M]onetary sanction orders are enforceable through the execution of judgment laws.'].)

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.)

NOTICE:

Consistent with Local Rule 1.06(B), any party requesting oral argument on any matter on this calendar must comply with the following procedure:

To request limited oral argument, on any matter on this calendar, you must call the Department 16C Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-1475 by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the hearing and advise opposing counsel. At the time of requesting oral argument, the requesting party shall leave a voice mail message: a) identifying

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV012093: ESTELLE'S BAKING COMPANY LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY vs DEMOSTHENES JOHN KAUFMAN AND MARIA THERESA KAUFMAN, TRUSTEES OF THE DJKM TRUST DATED FEBRUARY 23, 2000, et al. 09/10/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Demand for Inspection, Set One in Department 16C

themselves as the party requesting oral argument; b) indicating the specific matter/motion for which they are requesting oral argument; and c) confirming that it has notified the opposing party of its intention to appear and that opposing party may appear via Zoom using the Zoom link and Meeting ID indicated below. If no request for oral argument is made, the tentative ruling becomes the final order of the Court.

Unless ordered to appear in person by the Court, parties may appear remotely either telephonically or by video conference via the Zoom video/audio conference platform with notice to the Court and all other parties in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure §367.75. Although remote participation is not required, the Court will presume all parties are appearing remotely for non-evidentiary civil hearings.

The Department 16C Zoom Link is https://saccourt-cagov.zoomgov.com/j/16030877014 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 160 3087 7014. To appear on Zoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID referenced above. NO COURTCALL APPEARANCES WILL BE ACCEPTED.

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 on the Court Reporter Services webpage available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://saccourt.ca.gov/general-information/court-reporter-servicestranscripts. Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://saccourt.ca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/227/639084034465370000.

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 forward the form to the Court Reporter’s

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV012093: ESTELLE'S BAKING COMPANY LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY vs DEMOSTHENES JOHN KAUFMAN AND MARIA THERESA KAUFMAN, TRUSTEES OF THE DJKM TRUST DATED FEBRUARY 23, 2000, et al. 09/10/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Demand for Inspection, Set One in Department 16C

Office and an official reporter will be provided.