Alison E Chase vs Brian M Metcalf et al

Case Number

21CV02245

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Fri, 02/13/2026 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

CMC; Motions to Compel; Protective Order

Tentative Ruling

A discovery referee will be appointed regarding the pending discovery motions and all subsequent discovery disputes in this matter. Appearances are required. The parties are to be prepared to discuss the appointment of the discovery referee.

Background:

This is an action for partition by sale of real property. Plaintiff is Alison E. Chase. Defendants are Brian M. Metcalf and Pentagon Federal Credit Union. (Pentagon Federal Credit Union has since been dismissed.)

As alleged in the Second Amended Complaint (SAC) filed by plaintiff on December 16, 2021, by grant deed dated March 20, 2018, Gary Gordon, Trustee of the Edmond W. Gordon Separate Property Trust, transferred title to real property located at 1790 Eucalyptus Hill Road, Santa Barbara, California (the property) to plaintiff and defendant as joint tenants. Plaintiff and defendant each hold an undivided one-half fee simple interest in the property. Pentagon Federal Credit Union is the owner of a $1,252,000 note secured by a deed of trust on the Property. After the parties’ relationship ended, plaintiff suggested to defendant that they list the property for sale. Defendant allegedly refused. Plaintiff then requested that defendant pay plaintiff the equity in the property proportionate to her ownership interest. Defendant, again, allegedly refused. As tenant-in-possession, defendant has allegedly excluded plaintiff from the property by changing the locks to the residence without plaintiff’s consent. Finally, defendant has allegedly failed and refused to provide plaintiff with a copy of the notice of sale, assignment, and transfer of note that was issued after the property was refinanced and the note secured by the property was transferred from the original lender to Pentagon Federal Credit Union. The SAC alleges a single cause of action for partition by sale of real property.

Metcalf answered the SAC and cross-complained against plaintiff. In his operative first amended cross-complaint (FACC), Metcalf alleges causes of action for (1) constructive fraud, (2) fraud by misrepresentation, (3) negligence, (4) breach of contract, (5) promissory estoppel, (6) breach of fiduciary duty, (7) accounting, (8) declaratory relief, (9) unjust enrichment, and (10) equitable indemnity. The court sustained plaintiff’s demurrer to the third and tenth causes of action for negligence and equitable indemnity without leave to amend. Plaintiff filed an answer to the FACC on February 15, 2022, and on the same date, filed a cross-complaint to the FACC against defendant. Chase’s cross-complaint alleges causes of action for (1) breach of contract, (2) promissory estoppel, (3) fraud, (4) breach of fiduciary duty, (5) ouster, (6) conversion, (7) unjust enrichment, and (8) accounting. Among her other prayers for relief, Chase seeks exemplary damages.

There have been numerous discovery disputes in this matter.

Now, before the court, are four additional discovery motions: (1) Plaintiff Alison E. Chase’s motion for protective order regarding her deposition; (2) Plaintiff Alison E. Chase’s motion to compel defendant Brian Metcalf to further respond to and produce documents regarding requests for production of documents, set four; preserving the issue of monetary sanctions; (3) Defendant Brian Metcalf’s motion to compel further responses to special interrogatories, set one; request for monetary sanctions; and (4) Defendant Brian Metcalf’s motion to compel further responses to supplemental interrogatories; request for monetary sanctions.

Relevant to Metcalf’s motion to compel further responses to special interrogatories: On September 12, 2025, as the result of a motion filed by Metcalf, Metcalf was granted leave to file a concise outline in support of his motion to compel further responses to special interrogatories, set one. Metcalf argued that if he were to file a separate statement that it would likely exceed 1,000 pages. Metcalf’s “concise outline” filed in support of the present motion, including exhibits, totals 1,981 pages. It is by no means “concise.”  His combined points and authorities, and declaration, for the motion totals an additional 260 pages.

Analysis:

There are exceptional circumstances in this case that require the appointment of a discovery referee.

“(a) When the parties do not consent, the court may, upon the written motion of any party, or of its own motion, appoint a referee in the following cases pursuant to the provisions of subdivision (b) of Section 640: . . .

“(5) When the court in any pending action determines that it is necessary for the court to appoint a referee to hear and determine any and all discovery motions and disputes relevant to discovery in the action and to report findings and make recommendation thereon.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 639, subd. (a)(5).)

“Unless both parties have agreed to a reference, the court should not make blanket orders directing all discovery motions to a discovery referee except in the unusual case where a majority of factors favoring reference are present. These include: (1) there are multiple issues to be resolved; (2) there are multiple motions to be heard simultaneously; (3) the present motion is only one in a continuum of many; (4) the number of documents to be reviewed (especially in issues based on assertions of privilege) make the inquiry inordinately time-consuming.

“In making its decision, the trial courts need consider the statutory scheme is designed only to permit reference over the parties’ objections where that procedure is necessary, not merely convenient. (§ 639, subd. (e).) Where one or more of the above factors unduly impact the court’s time and/or limited resources, the court is clearly within its discretion to make an appropriate reference.” (Taggares v. Superior Court (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 94, 105-106.)

Here, all of the factors favoring reference are present and the appointment of a discovery referee is necessary. There are multiple issues to be resolved between the parties, there are currently four discovery motions pending, the present motions are a continuum of many previous discovery motions, and the number of documents to be reviewed make inquiry inordinately time-consuming.

Appearances will be required to discuss the appointment.