Opposition to Lionsgate's Writ Petition: Privilege Waived by Late Discovery Responses
Lions Gate Films Inc. v. Superior Court (Rodriguez v. Tyler Perry)
Lionsgate answered our client's document requests five weeks late, after the deadline had passed and every objection had been waived, and it never served a privilege log. The trial court refused to give the objections back. Lionsgate then asked the Court of Appeal to overturn that order. This brief explains why the petition should be denied: the late responses were not in substantial compliance with the Code, and that was Lionsgate's burden to show.
Lionsgate answered our client's document requests five weeks late, after the deadline had passed and every objection had been waived, and it never served a privilege log. The trial court refused to give the objections back. Lionsgate then asked the Court of Appeal to overturn that order. This brief explains why the petition should be denied: the late responses were not in substantial compliance with the Code, and that was Lionsgate's burden to show.
Denial of Lionsgate's petition for a writ of mandate and of its renewed request for a stay, leaving in place the trial court's 27 July 2026 order that Lionsgate serve verified responses without objections, plus an award of costs.
This brief was filed in Mario Rodriguez v. Tyler Perry. It answers Lionsgate's petition to overturn the order won on the motion to compel Lionsgate's document responses. A dated timeline of the case is kept current as the docket moves.
What the Court of Appeal is being asked to decide
Mr. Rodriguez served requests for production of documents on Lions Gate Films Inc. on 7 April 2026. The responses were due on 12 May 2026. Nothing was served by that date: no response, no objection and no request for more time.
On 27 July 2026 the trial court granted the motion to compel. It ordered Lionsgate to serve verified responses without objections, and it denied Lionsgate's motion for relief from the waiver of its objections. On 6 August 2026 Lionsgate filed a petition for a writ of mandate in the Court of Appeal, No. B356319. This preliminary opposition asks that court to deny the petition.
Do late discovery responses waive privilege in California?
Yes, unless the court grants relief. Under Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.300, subdivision (a), a party that does not respond to requests for production on time "waives any objection to the demand, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product."
The court may relieve a late party from that waiver only if both of two conditions are met, and the late party must prove both. First, it must have served a later response "in substantial compliance with Sections 2031.210, 2031.220, 2031.230, 2031.240, and 2031.280." Second, its failure to respond on time must have resulted from "mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect."
Section 2031.240 is the privilege-log statute. A party that withholds documents as privileged must identify each item withheld, state "the particular privilege invoked," and "provide sufficient factual information for other parties to evaluate the merits of that claim, including, if necessary, a privilege log." That is why a late response that asserts privilege but lists no withheld document can fail the first condition.
One mailing, three offices, two national law firms
The requests were mailed on 7 April 2026 in three envelopes, one to each of Lionsgate's lawyers at three offices of two national law firms. None was returned undeliverable. Lionsgate's own petition concedes that two of the three were delivered but never discovered by its counsel. Only one envelope, it says, went missing.
Lionsgate faulted Mr. Rodriguez for serving by mail rather than email. But on 21 April 2026 his office wrote to all six defense lawyers and asked whether they would agree to electronic service. No one answered. As the trial court put it: "Absent such an agreement, service by mail is an authorized method of service under the Code of Civil Procedure."
No privilege log, more than three months on
Lionsgate served three sets of responses after the deadline. The last set of verifications arrived at 8:23 a.m. on the morning of the hearing. None of the three came with a privilege log, although nearly every response asserted privilege.
The trial court judged the responses as a whole and ruled: "The court finds Lionsgate[’s] late responses do not substantially comply with the Code. Relief is therefore unwarranted." The brief shows that this was a discretionary finding on the record, reviewed only for abuse of discretion, and that the petition never engages that standard.
The harm Lionsgate claims, and the harm to Mr. Rodriguez
Lionsgate says the order forces it to hand over privileged documents. In more than three months it has not identified a single one: no author, no date, no description. The brief argues that a harm no one can describe cannot be irreparable, and that Lionsgate could have protected any genuinely privileged document at any time by serving the log the statute requires.
Mr. Rodriguez alleges that Lionsgate retained Tyler Perry with knowledge of his prior misconduct. The requests seek the documents that would prove that knowledge. By the date of this brief, he had waited a full quarter for the first document.
Where the appeal stands
On 29 July 2026 the trial court denied Lionsgate's request to pause its order. On its own initiative, it gave Lionsgate 30 days instead of 15 to comply, which set the deadline at 26 August 2026. The trial court denied Mr. Rodriguez's own request for sanctions against Lionsgate.
This opposition was filed on 14 August 2026. On 21 August 2026 the Court of Appeal temporarily stayed the 27 July order, insofar as it deems Lionsgate to have waived privileges and compels responses without objections, pending its further order. Lionsgate filed a reply on 26 August 2026. As of 25 September 2026, the court's docket shows no decision on the petition. This page will be updated when the court rules.
Frequently asked questions
What is a writ of mandate in a California discovery dispute?
A writ of mandate is an order from a higher court directing a lower court to act, or to undo an order. Under Code of Civil Procedure section 1086, the writ issues only "where there is not a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy, in the ordinary course of law." Courts of Appeal take a closer look at discovery orders that force disclosure of possibly privileged material. In Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 263, the court explained: "Because the matter involved compelled disclosure of information which potentially fell within the attorney-client privilege, we issued an order to show cause."
What is a preliminary opposition to a writ petition?
It is the first written response to a writ petition, filed before the Court of Appeal decides whether to take the petition further. Under California Rules of Court, rule 8.487(a), a respondent or real party in interest may file one "within 10 days after the petition is filed," and it "must contain a memorandum and a statement of any material fact not included in the petition." Lionsgate filed its petition on 6 August 2026, and this opposition was filed on 14 August 2026.
What can the Court of Appeal do with a writ petition?
Rule 8.487(a)(4) lists the options. The court may "grant or deny a request for temporary stay, deny the petition, issue an alternative writ or order to show cause, or notify the parties that it is considering issuing a peremptory writ in the first instance." An order to show cause asks the other side to explain why the writ should not issue, and it leads to full briefing.
What did the Court of Appeal's 21 August 2026 order do?
It paused part of the trial court's order while the petition is considered. The order stayed the 27 July 2026 order "insofar as it deems petitioner to have waived privileges as to certain discovery and compels petitioner to serve responses to those discovery requests without objections," "pending further order of this court." It did not decide the petition. Lionsgate filed a reply on 26 August 2026.
Can a party lose attorney-client privilege by how it answers discovery?
Yes. In Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 263, the insurer served a timely response but did not object on privilege grounds. The Court of Appeal concluded "that Scottsdale has waived its attorney-client privilege with respect to the documents ordered to be produced," and it denied the writ. The opinion also records that Scottsdale did "not challenge the fact that waiver does occur when there is a complete failure to respond to discovery." The case applied the former section 2031, which was later renumbered; the waiver rule for late responses is now in section 2031.300.
How long does a party have to respond to document requests in California?
Thirty days after service, under section 2031.260(a). If the requests are served by mail to an address in California, section 1013(a) adds five calendar days. In this case the requests were mailed on 7 April 2026, and the responses were due on 12 May 2026.
What is a privilege log?
A privilege log is a list of the documents a party is withholding as privileged, with enough detail about each one for the other side and the court to test the claim. Section 2031.240(c)(1) requires a response to "provide sufficient factual information for other parties to evaluate the merits of that claim, including, if necessary, a privilege log."
The filed document
The document below is reproduced here in full.
Note
Public-record court filing, published to show the firm’s work. This case is in active litigation and the firm does not comment on it beyond the filed papers. General information, not legal advice. Attorney advertising.
Tell us what happened. We read it free.
Send it in a sentence or two. If there’s a case, we’ll tell you what it is and what to do next. If there isn’t, we’ll tell you that too, straight, and at no cost.
Prefer to talk? Call (424) 255-8376. A real person answers.