RINGGOLD vs BURGETT INC., et al.

23CV006400: RINGGOLD vs BURGETT INC., et al. 07/06/2026 Hearing on Motion for Order Deeming Requests for Admissions, Set One in Department 8C

Tentative Ruling

NOTICE:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that any oral arguments regarding this tentative ruling will be heard at 1:30 p.m. in Department 8C in the Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye Courthouse at 500 G Street, Sacramento, CA, the Hon. Richard C. Miadich presiding.

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/j/16039062174

SIP Address:

16039062174@sip.zoomgov.com

(833) 568-8864

23CV006400: RINGGOLD vs BURGETT INC., et al. 07/06/2026 Hearing on Motion for Order Deeming Requests for Admissions, Set One in Department 8C

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

***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***

Defendant Burgett Inc. dba Pianodisc’s (“Defendant”) motion for an order deeming matters admitted is ruled upon as follows.

On November 17, 2025, Defendant served on Plaintiff in pro per Edward Ringgold (“Plaintiff”) Defendant’s Requests for Admissions, Set One via mail. (Rediger Decl., ¶ 4, Exh. B.) Defendant also sent a courtesy copy of the requests to Plaintiff via email. (Rediger Decl., ¶ 5, Exh. C.) As of the filing of this motion on January 9, 2026, Plaintiff had not served responses and had not

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV006400: RINGGOLD vs BURGETT INC., et al. 07/06/2026 Hearing on Motion for Order Deeming Requests for Admissions, Set One in Department 8C

requested or obtained an extension to respond. (Rediger Decl., ¶¶ 6-7.)

In opposition, Plaintiff asserts that he served responses after the motion was filed. (See Ringgold Decl., ¶ 4.) However, Plaintiff does not specify the date that he served the responses, and the responses are not attached to Plaintiff’s opposition. In reply, Defendant’s counsel declares that Plaintiff has not served responses. (Rediger Decl. ISO Reply, ¶ 4.)

After the reply was filed, Plaintiff filed a “limited response and objection to new matters” raised in Defendant’s reply. Plaintiff did not obtain leave to file a sur-reply or explain why it was necessary for him to file a sur-reply. While it is appropriate for Plaintiff to assert objections to new evidence submitted in reply, it is not appropriate for Plaintiff to present additional arguments on the merits that go beyond the objections. Further, the sur-reply does not clearly state the grounds for any objection or the matter to which objections are being asserted.

Plaintiff does not appear to object to or dispute Defendant’s counsel’s assertion in the reply that Plaintiff has not served responses. To the extent Plaintiff objects to other matters discussed in Defendant’s counsel’s reply declaration, the Court need not adjudicate the objections as the matters are not relevant to the Court’s determination of this motion.

Where a party fails to serve timely responses to requests for admissions, the party propounding the requests “may move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted, as well as for a monetary sanction.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280(b).) The party to whom the requests for admissions were directed may avoid an order deeming matters admitted by serving, “before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280(c).)

Here, there is no dispute that Plaintiff did not serve responses to Defendant’s Requests for Admissions, Set One by the statutory deadline and did not obtain an extension to serve responses. The evidence before the Court indicates that Plaintiff has not subsequently served responses. While Plaintiff asserts in his opposition that he served responses after this motion was filed, this is disputed by Defendant’s counsel. Even if the Court accepted Plaintiff’s assertion that he served belated responses, there are no responses before the Court, so there is no way for the Court to determine whether the responses are in substantial compliance with Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.220. Therefore, Defendant is entitled to an order deeming admitted the matters specified in Defendant’s Requests for Admissions, Set One.

Accordingly, Defendant’s motion for an order deeming matters admitted is GRANTED.

The Court is required to make this order deeming the requests for admissions admitted,

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV006400: RINGGOLD vs BURGETT INC., et al. 07/06/2026 Hearing on Motion for Order Deeming Requests for Admissions, Set One in Department 8C

unless Plaintiff serves on Defendant’s counsel and files with the Court, before the hearing on the motion, verified responses to the requests for admission that are in substantial compliance with Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.220.

Defendant also requests monetary sanctions against Plaintiff in the amount of $1,545.00, based on 2.0 hours preparing the motion at $450.00 per hour, 1.3 hours reviewing Plaintiff’s opposition and drafting the reply at $450.00 per hour, and the $60.00 filing fee for the motion. Monetary sanctions are mandatory “on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated” a motion to deem matters admitted. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280(c).) The sanctions are mandatory even if the responding party avoids a deemed admitted order by serving belated responses before the hearing as described above. (See Katayama v.

Continental Investment Group (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 898, 909.) Thus, Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions is GRANTED in the reduced amount of $1,410.00, representing 3.0 total hours at $450.00 per hour and the $60.00 filing fee, with the time spent reviewing Plaintiff’s opposition being reduced by 0.3, since Plaintiff’s opposition is directed at two discovery motions on today’s calendar. Sanctions shall be paid by no later than July 20, 2026, and if not paid by that date, Defendant 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.)