B.B. vs SPARE-TIME, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, et al.

23CV004953: B.B. vs SPARE-TIME, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, et al. 08/11/2025 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set Two 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

23CV004953: B.B. vs SPARE-TIME, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, et al. 08/11/2025 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set Two 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 Spare-Time, Inc.’s (“Defendant”) motion to compel Plaintiff B.B., a minor by and through her guardian ad litem, Jamie Muahay Powers (“Plaintiff”), to serve further responses to Defendant’s Request for Production of Documents, Set Two, is ruled upon as follows.

Plaintiff’s counsel is admonished for failing to comply with California Rules of Court rule 3.1110(f)(4), which requires electronic exhibits to include electronic bookmarks linking to the first page of each exhibit. Failure to comply with this rule in the future may result in a motion being dropped or an opposition not being considered.

Defendants’ objections to the Declaration of Celine E. Cutter are SUSTAINED.

In this case, Plaintiff alleges she was sexually abused by Kaspar Zemaitelis, a tennis coach at the Junior Tennis Academy at Rio Del Oro Sports Club (“Rio Del Oro) in Sacramento, from October of 2021 to July of 2022 when Plaintiff was 14 years old. Rio Del Oro is one of several athletic clubs owned by Defendant. Plaintiff’s Complaint includes two causes of action: (1) negligence

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV004953: B.B. vs SPARE-TIME, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, et al. 08/11/2025 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set Two in Department 54

and (2) premises liability.

Defendant served the subject requests on February 26, 2025. Plaintiff served responses via email on April 2, 2025. Defendant’s counsel sent a meet and confer email on May 19, 2025, one day before the deadline for this motion. Defendant’s counsel declares that he had drafted a meet and confer correspondence earlier, but it “inadvertently did not go out to Plaintiff’s Counsel until May 19, 2025.” (Young Decl., ¶ 3.) Counsel does not specify when this prior correspondence was drafted and when it was supposed to be sent. In the May 19 email, Defendant’s counsel asked for an extension to May 23, 2025 to file this motion, but Plaintiff’s counsel did not respond before May 20, the date Defendant filed the present motion.

On May 23, 2025, Plaintiff’s counsel emailed Defendant’s counsel asking if Defendant was still willing to meet and confer. Defendant’s counsel responded by noting that the motion states that Defendant is willing to drop the matter if the parties resolve the dispute. On May 27, 2025, Plaintiff’s counsel sent a letter responding to Defendant’s counsel’s May 19 meet and confer email. After not receiving a response, Plaintiff’s counsel sent a follow up email on July 7, 2025. Defendant’s counsel then responded by contending that the May 27 letter was “just as evasive as Plaintiff’s discovery responses,” and indicated that the motion would stay on calendar. (Cutter Decl., Exh. 4, p. 1.) Over the next week, the parties exchanged additional emails but did not resolve the dispute. (See Cutter Decl., Exhs. 5 & 6.)

Defendant’s pre-filing meet and confer efforts were clearly insufficient. A party cannot satisfy the meet and confer requirement by sending an email on day before filing the motion. While Defendant’s counsel indicates that he had previously drafted a meet and confer correspondence but inadvertently failed to send it, glaringly little detail related to this unsent correspondence is provided, particularly when it was drafted. However, the Court appreciates that the parties made some attempt to resolve the dispute after the motion was filed, although Defendant’s counsel’s post-filing efforts were not particularly engaging. Thus, the Court will reach the merits of the motion, as it appears that any further meet and confer efforts will be futile.

Defendant’s motion involves a total of eight requests (Request Nos. 1-4 and 6-9). Each request asks Plaintiff to produce documents that support her contentions. In each response, Plaintiff asserted several objections before identifying a series of overlapping documents that Plaintiff contended were equally available to Defendant or were previously produced by Plaintiff and would not be reproduced. Defendant contends that Plaintiff improperly made broad, sweeping reference to the documents identified in the responses without referring to specific pages or providing more clarifying information as to how the documents support her contentions. For example, Plaintiff’s responses identified the employment file of Mr. Zemaitelis, and Defendant contends, “Plaintiff makes no reference to any specific bates stamped page in Zemaitelis’s file

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV004953: B.B. vs SPARE-TIME, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, et al. 08/11/2025 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set Two in Department 54

and does not specify precisely what element of Zemaitelis’ employment file Plaintiff is referencing.” (Mot. MPA, p. 5:19-21.) Similarly, Plaintiff’s responses identified deposition transcripts, and Defendant argues, “By making sweeping reference to these deposition transcripts without referencing an actual page or line number responsive to the request, Plaintiff’s responses are therefore evasive and must be supplemented.” (Mot. MPA, p. 6:10-12.)

The Court agrees with Plaintiff’s argument in her opposition that Defendant’s motion is essentially seeking to compel interrogatory responses (or even deposition responses) to requests for production of documents. Indeed, Plaintiff is correct that Defendant’s notice of motion cites the incorrect legal authority for its motion, as it cites Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300, which governs motions to compel further responses to interrogatories. Plaintiff’s responses identified documents as required. Defendant cites no authority requiring Plaintiff, in responses to requests for production of documents, to identify specific page or line numbers that make the documents responsive.

Accordingly, Defendant’s motion is DENIED.

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is GRANTED in the reduced amount of $2,000.00, representing five hours at $400 per hour. Sanctions are imposed against Defendant and Defendant’s counsel, jointly and severally. Sanctions shall be paid by no later than August 26, 2025, and if not paid by that date, Plaintiff may prepare for the Court’s signature a formal order granting the sanctions, which may then be enforced as a separate judgment. (Newland v. Superior Court (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 608, 615.)

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.)