JOHN DOE 1, et al. vs LINAN

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

***NOTICE: EFFECTIVE APRIL 13, 2026, THIS DEPARTMENT HAS MOVED TO THE TANI G. CANTIL-SAKAUYE COURTHOUSE LOCATED AT 500 G STREET SACRAMENTO, CA. ALL MOTIONS NOTICED FOR DEPARTMENT 28 WILL BE HEARD IN DEPARTMENT 8C OF THE NEW COURTHOUSE. ALL PAPERS FOR THIS DEPARTMENT MUST BE FILED AT THIS NEW LOCATION AND WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED AT THE HALL OF JUSTICE. ALL HEARINGS WILL TAKE PLACE AT THIS NEW LOCATION***

Plaintiffs John Doe 1 and John Doe 2’s (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) motion to compel Defendant San Juan Unified School District (“SJUSD”) to serve further responses to Plaintiffs’ Request for Production of Documents, Set One, is CONTINUED to August 10, 2026 at 1:30 p.m. in Department 8C, with further instructions below.

Motions generally must be served on all parties who have appeared. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1014.) A defendant who has filed an answer has appeared in the action. (Ibid.)

Here, Defendant in pro per Ricky Linan (“Linan”) appeared in this action when he filed his

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV023391: JOHN DOE 1, et al. vs LINAN 07/06/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Production of Documents in Department 8C

answer on January 29, 2026. Plaintiffs filed their original moving papers on April 8, 2026 and filed an amended notice along with papers in support of the amended notice on May 6, 2026. The proofs of service for both the April 8 and May 6 papers evince service by electronic mail only. This is problematic as to Linan for two reasons: (1) as an unrepresented party, Linan must consent to receive electronic service for such service to be effective, and there is no evidence that he has manifested such consent (Code Civ. Proc. § 1010.6(c)); and (2) even if Linan has consented to electronic service, Plaintiffs’ proofs of service do not establish valid electronic service on Linan because they do not include Linan’s electronic service address (Code Civ. Proc. § 1013b(b)(3)). Thus, although Linan has appeared in this action, he has not been properly served with the motion.

The Court recognizes that Linan is not the responding party to the requests at issue in this motion. However, he is still entitled to notice of all proceedings in this case under Code of Civil Procedure section 1014. The Court also recognizes that, at least in the context of a motion for new trial, “[t]he failure to serve a given party will not deprive the court of jurisdiction to grant the motion in so far as it can be granted without affecting the rights of the party not served.” (Caruthers Bldg.

Co. v. Johnson (1916) 174 Cal. 20, 24.) However, even if this rule is applicable to other types of motions, including discovery motions, there is sufficient risk here that Linan’s rights may be affected by the Court’s adjudication of this motion. For one, Linan is entitled to know what has been produced to Plaintiffs during discovery in this matter so that he can be fully informed when developing his litigation strategy, among other reasons. (See Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.260(a) [requiring a party responding to requests for production of documents to serve the responses “on all other parties who have appeared in the action”].)

Additionally, several of the requests at issue seek documents found within Linan’s personnel file with SJUSD. The parties disagree over whether SJUSD must obtain Linan’s consent before it can produce these documents, and the Court expresses no opinion on the issue at this time. However, even if Linan cannot prevent SJUSD from producing the documents, it seems reasonable that he should be aware that his personnel file may be produced to Plaintiffs in this litigation so that he may pursue any remedies that may be available to him as a result of the production.

The Court also recognizes that the hearing for this motion was advanced from October 19, 2026 to today’s date pursuant to Plaintiffs’ ex parte application, meaning the Court found good cause existed for this motion to be heard earlier than the originally noticed date. This suggests a certain urgency for this motion to be decided. Even so, the Court finds that any prejudice to the parties from the brief delay caused by this continuance is outweighed by the prejudice to Linan from not being given notice of the proceeding. This case has been pending for just over nine months, and trial is over a year away, so sufficient time remains for the parties to adequately prepare and conduct further discovery even with the continuance.

Accordingly, as stated above, Plaintiffs’ motion to compel is CONTINUED to August 10, 2026

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV023391: JOHN DOE 1, et al. vs LINAN 07/06/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Production of Documents in Department 8C

at 1:30 p.m. in Department 8C. Plaintiffs are directed to serve an amended notice with the new hearing date and time along with the moving papers on Linan via mail at the address listed in his answer by no later than July 10, 2026, and to file a proof of service with the Court upon making the service on Linan.

On the Court's own motion, the Hearing on Motion to Compel Production of Documents scheduled for 07/06/2026 is continued to 08/10/2026 at 01:30 PM in Department 8C at Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye Courthouse.