HONORABLE MICHAEL L. MAU, Department 20 ________________________________________________________________________ 9:00 AM Line 5 24-CIV-01114 CAROLYN LYNCH VS. CORNERSTONE RESEARCH, INC.

CAROLYN LYNCH TAMARAH P. PREVOST CORNERSTONE RESEARCH, INC. LINDSAY RYAN

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant’s Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents No. 25

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Carolyn Lynch’s Motion to Compel Defendant Cornerstone Research, Inc.’s Further (unredacted) Response to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents No. 25 is DENIED.

Parties are reminded that exhibits must be properly bookmarked. That is, “electronic exhibits must include electronic bookmarks with links to the first page of each exhibit and with bookmark titles that identify the exhibit number or letter and briefly describe the exhibit.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1110(f)(4); see also San Mateo County Superior Court, L.R. 3.3 [“Failure to bookmark exhibits to electronically filed documents may result in rejection of the party’s e-filing by the Clerk of the Court or in continuance of the hearing by the Court on the related motion.”].)

Background

Plaintiff Carolyn Lynch began working at Defendant Cornerstone Research, Inc. in 2018. In 2022, plaintiff suffered two grievous family tragedies and took bereavement leave as well as a protected short term disability leave. A few days after her return to work, events occurred which caused plaintiff to believe she was being unlawfully targeted, and she made a formal complaint to defendant’s human resources department. Shortly thereafter Defendant’s General Counsel, Ms. Fernanda Schmid, notified plaintiff she was “terminated immediately.” Plaintiff alleges her termination was unlawfully motivated by her disability and her use of protected medical leave, constituting discrimination and retaliation. The matter is set for trial commencing July 13, 2026 with discovery scheduled to close on June 15, 2026.

Plaintiff brings this motion pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 2031.310 and 2031.320 on the grounds that defendant’s current response to plaintiff’s request for production of documents number 25 are inadequate because they are redacted and good cause exists for unredacted versions. Plaintiff contends that defendant has impliedly waived any assertion of privilege regarding this production request. Defendant opposes on grounds of its timely response which included objections which included attorneyclient privilege and work product doctrine, and other miscellaneous objections.

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…

Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Other rulings by MICHAEL L. MAU Judge MICHAEL L. MAU dossier Other Motion to Compel Further Responses in SANMATEO All SANMATEO County rulings Other Employment cases Other denied rulings in SANMATEO

Related rulings

by semantic similarity

Source

Print-friendly view

“[T]he discovery statutes vest a wide discretion on the trial court in granting or denying discovery.” (Greyhound Corp. v. Superior Court In and For Merced County (1961) 56 Cal.2d 355, 378 [superceded

May 22, 2026 Law and Motion Calendar PAGE 16 HONORABLE MICHAEL L. MAU, Department 20 ________________________________________________________________________ by statute].) “ ‘The standard of review generally applicable to review of discovery orders is abuse of discretion, as management of discovery lies within the sound discretion of the trial court. [Citations.]’ [Citation.]” (Haniff v. Superior Court (2017) 9 Cal.App.5th 191, 198.)” (Manuel v. Superior Court of Santa Clara County (2022) 82 Cal.App.5th 719, 727.)

Code of Civil Procedure, section 2030.010 provides “[a]ny party may obtain discovery within the scope delimited by Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 2017.010), and subject to the restrictions set forth in Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 2019.010), by propounding to any other party to the action written interrogatories to be answered under oath.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.010, subd. (a).) That being said, discovery casts a far-reaching net:

Unless otherwise limited by order of the court in accordance with this title, any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action or to the determination of any motion made in that action, if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

(Code Civ. Proc., § 2017.010, emphasis added.)

It is well-settled that once a timely motion to compel has been filed, the burden is on the responding party to justify any objection or failure to fully answer the interrogatories. (Coy v. Superior Court of Contra Costa County (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220-221.) To do so, the responding party must affirmatively show that the burden of responding would be so great, and the benefit of the information sought would be so minimal that it would defeat the ends of justice to require the party to answer. (Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Superior Court (1968) 263 Cal.App.2d 12, 19.)

Before the Court is a question regarding alleged waiver of the attorney-client privilege with respect to the communications between defendant’s principals and defendant’s general counsel Fernanda Schmid. Under Evidence Code section 954 “confidential communication between client and lawyer”, as defined by Evidence Code section 952 as “information transmitted between a client and his or her lawyer in the course of that relationship” and in confidence, need not be disclosed. The Court notes waivers of the attorney-client privilege are to be narrowly circumscribed. (Transamerica Title Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1988) 188 Cal.App.3d 1047, 1052.)

Protecting the confidentiality of communications between attorney and client is fundamental to our legal system. The attorney-client privilege is a hallmark of our jurisprudence that furthers the public policy of ensuring ‘ “the right of every person to freely and fully confer and confide in one having knowledge of the law, and skilled in its practice, in order that the former may have adequate advice and a proper defense.” ’ ”

(Johnson v. Department of Transportation (2025) 109 Cal.App.5th 917, 935 [citations omitted], as modified on denial of reh'g (Apr. 1, 2025), order vacated (Apr. 4, 2025), as modified on denial of reh'g (Apr. 4, 2025), review denied (June 25, 2025).)

In determining whether a communication is privileged, the Court’s inquiry focuses on the dominant purpose of the relationship between the parties to the communication.” (Johnson, supra, at 936 [citing Clark v. Superior Court (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 37, 51.)

May 22, 2026 Law and Motion Calendar PAGE 17 HONORABLE MICHAEL L. MAU, Department 20 ________________________________________________________________________ The party claiming the privilege has the burden of establishing the preliminary facts necessary to support its exercise, i.e., a communication made in the course of an attorney-client relationship. [Citations.] Once that party establishes facts necessary to support a prima facie claim of privilege, the communication is presumed to have been made in confidence and the opponent of the claim of privilege has the burden of proof to establish the communication was not confidential or that the privilege does not for other reasons apply.” (Costco, supra, 47 Cal.4th at p. 733, 101 Cal.Rptr.3d 758, 219 P.3d 736.)

Defendant has met their burden to establish facts in support of the attorney client privilege. (See Declaration of Fernanda Schmid, ¶¶ 5-15.) Upon reviewing the separate statement provided by plaintiff which contains the discovery request and response given and also attaches the redacted copies of the documents at issue, the Court is not compelled to find the that the privilege has been waived by implication because plaintiff does not meet its burden. (See Transamerica, supra, 188 Cal.App.3d at 1052.)

Here, plaintiff’s primary argument in support of waiver evidenced by implication rests upon speculation regarding what the redacted portions “appear to be” concluding that since defendant admits that Schmid was negotiating Plaintiff’s exit, and that was her only involvement, it seems clear that these emails were not sent/received for the purpose of giving or enlisting legal advice. (Prevost Decl. Ex. 17, Schmid Dep. 32:19-33:3) (MPA pp.6-7.) The Court cannot make such a jump in logic because the negotiation would be completely enmeshed with legal advice regarding same.

Accordingly, the Motion to Compel is DENIED.

Any party who contests a tentative ruling must email Dept20@sanmateocourt.org with a copy to all other parties by 4:00 p.m. stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests.

If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court. Thereafter, Counsel for the prevailing party shall prepare for the Court’s signature a written order consistent with the Court’s ruling pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1312 and provide written notice of the ruling to all parties who have appeared in the action, as required by law and by the CRC. Please note that Local Rule 3.403(b)(iv) states in part “prevailing party on a tentative ruling is required to prepare a proposed order REPEATING VERBATIM the tentative ruling” (emphasis added). The order should be filed or e-filed only, do not email or mail a hard copy to the Court.