CALIFORNIA STATE TEACHERS’ RETIREMENT SYSTEM v. DPR CONSTRUCTION, et al.

24CV013090: CALIFORNIA STATE TEACHERS' RETIREMENT SYSTEM, A PART OF CALIFORNIA'S GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS AGENCY vs DPR CONSTRUCTION, A GENERAL PARTNERSHIP, A CALIFORNIA GENERAL PARTNERSHIP, et al. 07/10/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses in Department 8B

Tentative Ruling

DPR Construction, a General Partnership (“DPR GP”) and Frank M. Booth, Inc. (“FMB”) respectively move to compel deposition attendance of California State Teachers’ Retirement System’s (“CalSTRS”) person(s) most qualified (“PMQ”) as it relates to the factual bases for CalSTRS’s fraud and conspiracy allegations. (Notices.)

Given the substantial overlap in types of deposition topics and the objections raised by CalSTRS, the Court combines its rulings on the motions into a single Tentative Ruling.

The Court strongly cautions Counsel to carefully review their pleadings and ensure that any cases cited therein are correct and relevant. Without dwelling on the specifics or admonishing any particular party, the Court notes that several citations did not support the assertions for which they were cited and/or were irrelevant to the issues before the Court on the instant motions. Any continued failures may result in the imposition of sanctions.

The Court also expects the Parties exercise care and diligence in preparing materials for the Court’s review. Bookmarks assist in the Court’s review of the Parties’ evidence, but only when those bookmarks are limited and clear, such as when they are labeled and direct the Court to the first page of each exhibit.

Background

This consolidated action involves claims and disputes among CalSTRS; CalSTRS’s construction contractor DPR GP; DPR GP’s affiliated entities (the “DPR Entities”), the Sureties, and DPR GP’s subcontractors, including FMB, arising out of the construction of CalSTRS’s headquarters expansion project. In pertinent part for the purposes of these motions, CalSTRS alleges fraud and conspiracy allegations against DPR GP and the subcontractors.

Summary of Discovery Disputes

DPR GP’s Notice

On March 20, 2026, DPR GP noticed a PMQ deposition delineating five topics relating to CalSTRS’s fraud allegations. (Dillon Decl., ¶ 2, Exh. 1.)[1] On April 14, 2026, CalSTRS served its objections and indicated that “CalSTRS will not be producing a witness for the requested deposition until the following objections are resolved.” (Id., ¶ 3, Exh. 1 [original emphasis omitted].) The Parties continued to meet and confer and participated in the April 23, 2026 IDC. (Id., ¶¶ 4-6.) At that time, it appeared that CalSTRS’s Counsel’s primary concern was clarifying

24CV013090: CALIFORNIA STATE TEACHERS' RETIREMENT SYSTEM, A PART OF CALIFORNIA'S GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS AGENCY vs DPR CONSTRUCTION, A GENERAL PARTNERSHIP, A CALIFORNIA GENERAL PARTNERSHIP, et al. 07/10/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses in Department 8B

the topics to allow him to property prepare a CalSTRS witness. (Id., ¶ 7, Exh. 2, pp. 37:14-24, 44:15-24, 75:26-76:21, 78:27-79:4.)

On May 1, 2026, DPR GP issued a new PMQ deposition notice, with 53 PMQ topics. (Dillon Decl., ¶ 9, Exh. 3.) Each topic is prefaced by the instruction that CalSTRS designate a witness to testify to “all facts, documents, and witnesses” relating to the topic. (Ibid.) On May 13, 2026, CalSTRS objected. (Id., ¶ 10, Exh. 4.) CalSTRS contends that the 53 topics failed to contain reasonable particularity, the notice was “premature” and improper under Rifkind, and that the notice is otherwise objectionable on the grounds of privilege, work product, duplicative/cumulative discovery, and overbreadth/undue burden. (Ibid.) During a June 2, 2026 meet-and-confer call, DPR attempted to engage CalSTRS regarding a resolution as to the scope and timing of a Fraud PMQ deposition. (Id., ¶ 14, Exh. 8.)

The Court held additional IDCs on these issues on May 15, 2026 and June 5, 2026. (Dillon Decl., ¶¶ 11, 15, Exhs. 5, 7.) And the Parties continued to meet and confer regarding the deposition notice. (Id., ¶¶ 12-14, 16, Exhs. 6, 8.) Through the meet and confer process, CalSTRS’s Counsel has indicated that CalSTRS “do[es] not categorically object to the deposition categories to the extent it seeks the witness’s percipient knowledge of facts, communications, and information[.]” (Id., ¶ 16, Exh. 8.)

FMB’s Notice

Similarly, on March 12, 2026, FMB sent an initial PMQ deposition notice requesting CalSTRS designate the person or persons most qualified to testify on its behalf regarding “all facts, documents, and witnesses” related to (1) the allegations in CalSTRS’s Second Amended Complaint against FMB; (2) CalSTRS’s responses to FMB’s Special Interrogatories; (3) CalSTRS’s Opposition to FMB’s Motion for Summary Judgment and Separate Statement of Material Facts; (4) FMB’s change order requests that were included in DPR Change Order Request Nos. 24, 29, and 35; and (5) each act of conspiracy by FMB as alleged by CalSTRS. (Aguilar Decl., ¶ 5, Exh. D.)

On April 14, 2026, after failing to respond to FMB’s inquiries about the deponent’s availability, CalSTRS served objections to the notice and stated that it would not provide a witness. (McDonough Decl., ¶¶ 2-4, Exh. E-G.) The Parties met and conferred and participated in an Informal Discovery Conference (“IDC”) on May 15, 2026. (Id., ¶¶ 5-6, Exh. M.) There, the Parties came to a compromise where FMB would provide specific references to potential change items (“PCI”), payment applications and Owner Change Orders (“OCOs”) such that CalSTRS could properly prepare its witness to testify. (Id., ¶ 7, Exh. H, pp. 43:3-44:5 [identifying the PCI, change orders, and pay applications FMB wanted to address was “all we’re asking for”

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV013090: CALIFORNIA STATE TEACHERS' RETIREMENT SYSTEM, A PART OF CALIFORNIA'S GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS AGENCY vs DPR CONSTRUCTION, A GENERAL PARTNERSHIP, A CALIFORNIA GENERAL PARTNERSHIP, et al. 07/10/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses in Department 8B

according to CalSTRS’s Counsel].) That same day, counsel for FMB emailed counsel for CalSTRS with a list of the PCIs that are related to CalSTRS’ fraud and conspiracy claims and the following week, sent an amended deposition notice specifically referencing the same PCIs and change orders. (Id., ¶ 8, Exh. I.) On May 18, 2026, FMB served its amended PMQ deposition notice, which included references to specific PCIs, payment applications, and OCOs as discussed at the IDC. (Id., ¶ 9, Exh. J.) However, CalSTRS still refused to produce a witness to testify, asserting that the topics were still “improper ‘contention’ topics” under Rifkind and improper for a deposition. (Id., ¶ 10.)

Following further meet and confer efforts, CalSTRS reiterated that the topics were not described with reasonable particularity and violated Rifkind, and CalSTRS would not designate or produce a witness for the noticed date. (Id., ¶¶ 12-13, Exh. I.) Thereafter, CalSTRS served its objections to FMB’s Amended Notice. (Id., ¶ 14, Exh. K.)

DPR GP and FMB now move to compel CalSTRS to produce PMQs for depositions. CalSTRS opposes, but did not move for a protective order or to quash the deposition notice.

Legal Standard

The Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) authorizes a party to take the deposition of another party to the action. (CCP, § 2025.010.) Service of a proper deposition notice is effective to require a party to attend a deposition, testify, and produce any documents. (Id., § 2025.280(a).) A party served with a deposition notice may object and may also move for an order staying the taking of the deposition and quashing the deposition notice. (Id., §§ 2025.410(a), (c).) “If, after service of a deposition notice, a party to the action without having served a valid objection under Section 2025.410, fails to appear for examination, the party giving the notice may move for an order compelling the deponent’s attendance and testimony.” (Id., § 2025.450(a).)

Pursuant to CCP section 2025.420, the Court, “for good cause shown, may make any order that justice requires to protect any party, deponent, or other natural person or organization from unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression, or undue burden and expense” including ruling that the deposition be taken only on certain specified terms and conditions, that certain matters may not be inquired into, or that the scope of the examination be limited to certain matters. (CCP, § 2025.420(b)(5), (9), and (10).) Even where a motion for protective order is denied in whole or in part, the Court may permit the discovery “on those terms and conditions that are just.” (Id., § 2025.420(g).) Simply put, the Court has broad, discretionary power over the formulation of discovery and protective orders. (People v. Superior Court (Credit One Bank, N.A.) (2025) 112 Cal.App.5th 804, 813.)

Discussion

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV013090: CALIFORNIA STATE TEACHERS' RETIREMENT SYSTEM, A PART OF CALIFORNIA'S GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS AGENCY vs DPR CONSTRUCTION, A GENERAL PARTNERSHIP, A CALIFORNIA GENERAL PARTNERSHIP, et al. 07/10/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses in Department 8B

At the outset, the Court finds that the present motions could have and should have been resolved via the meet-and-confer and IDC processes. In fact, the solutions reached in this Ruling are essentially the same solutions reached, but apparently abandoned, during those informal discussions. This Court does not have the resources to dedicate to formally resolving every discovery dispute that could and should have been resolved informally. Accordingly, the Court expects both counsel in the future to make maximum effort to resolve such matters on their own and the failure to do so may lead to the imposition of sanctions against one or both sides.

Rifkind v. Superior Court. In Rifkind v. Superior Court, the defendant was asked “legal contention” questions during his deposition that called for him to state all facts, list all witnesses and identify all documents supporting the various affirmative defenses alleged in his answer. (Rifkind, supra, 22 Cal.App.4th at p. 1256.) The Court of Appeal clearly held such questions were improper in the context of a deposition, but clarified that its concern is not with the questions themselves but rather with their context: “The same questions would have been entirely appropriate if asked by interrogatories.” (Ibid.) Notably, to emphasize the limited nature of its holding, the Court of Appeal began its discussion with the following remarks:

We emphasize at the outset what we are not discussing: questions at a deposition asking the person deposed about the basis for, or information about, a factual conclusion or assertion, as distinguished from the basis for a legal conclusion. Thus, if a deponent says that a certain event happened at a particular time or place, it is quite proper to ask the person, at deposition, how he or she became aware of it, his or her knowledge about it, and for similar information of a factual nature.

(Rifkind, supra, 22 Cal.App.4th at p. 1259.)

To the extent the deposition notices seek to designate a person most qualified to testify regarding “all facts, documents, and witnesses relating to the following topics,” they raise the specter of contention questions better suited to interrogatories, rather than PMQ depositions. (See McDonough Decl., ¶ 9, Exh. J; Dillon Decl., ¶ 9, Exh. 3.)[2] It is true that the subject topics ask for PMQs on the factual bases for CalSTRS’s fraud and conspiracy allegations and sometimes track the elements of CalSTRS’s claims. While DPR GP and FMB could have drafted the deposition notices to avoid these contention-like words and more clearly target CalSTRS’s knowledge of case-related facts, at base they are simply asking for a PMQ regarding the facts that underlie CalSTRS’s fraud and conspiracy allegations, not an application of those facts to the law or CalSTRS’s legal contentions.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV013090: CALIFORNIA STATE TEACHERS' RETIREMENT SYSTEM, A PART OF CALIFORNIA'S GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS AGENCY vs DPR CONSTRUCTION, A GENERAL PARTNERSHIP, A CALIFORNIA GENERAL PARTNERSHIP, et al. 07/10/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses in Department 8B

Given that neither deposition has occurred yet, it is speculative to contend that any and all questions that will be posed at the depositions will, in fact, run afoul of the prohibition described in Rifkind – particularly where the topics specifically identify particular statements and contract documents at issue. Rifkind held that questions asking a witness to state facts supporting a particular contention, while appropriate in interrogatories, are not appropriate at a deposition. It does not address topics listed in a deposition notice. It is not a basis to refuse to identify and produce a PMQ with respect to specific deposition topics concerning CalSTRS’s knowledge of the underlying facts. CalSTRS is, of course, free to interpose objections at the deposition based on Rifkind, but the Court will not preclude the deposition from proceeding on this ground.

The Court acknowledges that CalSTRS’s concern is not fully answered simply by observing that Rifkind speaks to deposition questions rather than to notice topics. Because CCP section 2025.230 requires CalSTRS to prepare its designee on the noticed matters, a notice demanding “all facts, documents, and witnesses” supporting each allegation would, if read literally, shift the very marshaling exercise Rifkind forbids from the deposition itself back to the preparation stage. The remedy, however, is not to excuse CalSTRS from producing a witness, but to construe the notices – as the Court does here – to reach only CalSTRS’s percipient knowledge of the facts and circumstances surrounding the identified events, transactions, and documents, and not a marshaling of the evidence supporting CalSTRS’s contentions.

So construed, the topics are proper, and CalSTRS’s preparation obligation is no greater than the duty, inherent in any PMQ deposition, to educate a witness regarding the facts known to the organization. “If the deposing party wants to know facts, it can ask for facts.” (Rifkind, supra, 22 Cal.App.4th at p. 1262.)

To be clear, given the extensive informal discussions and the Parties’ briefing on this issue, all counsel are on notice of the requirements of Rifkind, and the Court fully expects Counsel to comply with its prohibition on asking “legal contention” questions during the PMQ depositions. Questions put to PMQs shall seek “the basis for, or information about, a factual conclusion or assertion, as distinguished from the basis for a legal conclusion.” (Rifkind, supra, 22 Cal.App.4th at p. 1259.) Any disputes regarding specific deposition questions may be presented to the Discovery Referee (or, if the Referee is unavailable, the Court), ideally through an informal telephonic conference during the deposition itself. If the phrasing of a question runs afoul of Rifkind, and if the questioning attorney refuses to modify the question, the questioning attorney may be subject to sanctions.

For the guidance of counsel, the following are illustrative examples of impermissible legal contention questions:  “State every fact that supports CalSTRS’s contention that a specified Application for Payment was knowingly false.”  “Identify all witnesses and all documents that support CalSTRS’s allegation that a

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV013090: CALIFORNIA STATE TEACHERS' RETIREMENT SYSTEM, A PART OF CALIFORNIA'S GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS AGENCY vs DPR CONSTRUCTION, A GENERAL PARTNERSHIP, A CALIFORNIA GENERAL PARTNERSHIP, et al. 07/10/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses in Department 8B

defendant made a particular misrepresentation.”  “State each fact on which CalSTRS relies to establish intent to defraud.”  “Explain the basis for CalSTRS’s contention that the defendants engaged in a conspiracy, and identify all evidence supporting it.”

By contrast, the following are illustrative examples of permissible factual questions:  “Who at CalSTRS reviewed a specified Application for Payment, and what did they do in reviewing it?”  “What did CalSTRS understand a defendant to be representing when it submitted a specified Application for Payment?”  “Describe the process CalSTRS used to review, approve, or reject a specified Owner Change Order.”  “Does CalSTRS have knowledge of any statement it understood to be false when made, and if so, what was said, by whom, and when?”

A question asking whether the witness has knowledge that a specified event occurred is proper even if it tracks an element of a claim; the witness may answer from percipient facts, or state that CalSTRS has no such knowledge, while counsel preserves any Rifkind objection for later ruling. (Sabetian v. Exxon Mobil Corp. (2020) 57 Cal.App.5th 1054, 1085-1086.)

That said, Topic Nos. 51 and 52 of DPR GP’s notice are not appropriate because they are the equivalent of contention interrogatories seeking the application of facts to CalSTRS’s legal contentions that the “each and every alleged misrepresentation” was “knowingly false or fraudulent” and that CalSTRS’s relied on them. Accordingly, the Court strikes Topic Nos. 51 and 52 from DPR GP’s notice.

Reasonable Particularity. Section 2025.230 provides that for PMQ depositions, “the deposition notice shall describe with reasonable particularity the matters on which examination is requested.” (CCP, § 2025.230.) Here, the subject matter is clearly stated: the topics identify particular Applications for Payment, Change Orders, PCIs, OCOs, contract provisions, and specific representations, frequently with pinpoint references to the operative complaint. That is what section 2025.230 requires.

Regarding DPR GP’s notice, the Court appreciates that Topic Nos. 1 and 2 incorporate by reference hundreds of allegations made in CalSTRS’s operative complaint as made in Applications for Payment Nos. 10 through 67 and Change Order Nos 024, 027, 029, and 035. Those are obviously broad categories that may well present challenges to CalSTRS’s preparation of a PMQ (or PMQs). But it does not follow that they lack particularity. DPR GP identifies the specific contract documents and the specific representations allegedly contained therein,

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV013090: CALIFORNIA STATE TEACHERS' RETIREMENT SYSTEM, A PART OF CALIFORNIA'S GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS AGENCY vs DPR CONSTRUCTION, A GENERAL PARTNERSHIP, A CALIFORNIA GENERAL PARTNERSHIP, et al. 07/10/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses in Department 8B

including “PROJECT costs incurred, surety issues, Subcontractor Default Insurance, CONTRACT price, [and] CONTRACT completion dates or deadlines” and the “work performed, pricing for the work at issue, licensing.” That these categories are broad is a product of CalSTRS’s claims in this action, not poor drafting or a lack of particularity on DPR GP’s part. CalSTRS has made these allegations and DPR GP is entitled to probe CalSTRS’s knowledge regarding the representations and the related factual circumstances.

DPR GP’s remaining topics quote specific language for which they seek facts and reference the related contract documents and/or paragraphs in the operative complaint. The Court is persuaded that they are set forth with reasonable particularity.

Similarly, FMB’s topics quote the specific claims for which they seek facts and identify the underlying Applications for Payment, Owner Change Orders, and PCIs at issue. Those are certainly numerous, but they are set forth with particularity. To the extent FMB’s topics reference assertions from CalSTRS’s written discovery responses or opposition to FMB’s motion for summary judgment, FMB again specifically identifies the assertion at issue. For example, Topic No. 18 concerns CalSTRS’s assertion that DPR did not include certain scopes of work in its proposed award of the subcontract to FMB in accordance with DPR’s stated qualification criteria and standards. That is a discrete issue, described with reasonable particularity, such that CalSTRS can prepare a witness to testify regarding the underlying facts.

While the Court understands CalSTRS’s concerns, CalSTRS will have to prepare PMQs (and ultimately trial witnesses) to discuss the facts underlying its fraud and conspiracy allegations, including what representations were made and how; when they were made; by whom and to whom they were made; how CalSTRS reviewed and considered them; how CalSTRS relied on them; what actions, if any, CalSTRS took to verify them; how CalSTRS was harmed, if at all, by them; how Defendants worked together (for example, based on CalSTRS’s knowledge, were there verbal or written communications between Defendants?

If so, when? Who was involved in those particular communications”); as well as central issues such as the underlying contract documents, what CalSTRS believes they require, and CalSTRS’s knowledge about the progress of work throughout the performance period. Undoubtably, preparing PMQs will take time and effort, but CalSTRS’s concerns do not warrant denial of the motions to compel or narrowing of the topics.

That said, Topic No. 53 of DPR GP’s notice – a catch all seeking the “factual basis in support of each and every other alleged misrepresentation in YOUR COMPLAINT not already set forth above in Topic Nos. 1 through 52” – lacks reasonable particularity. Accordingly, it is stricken.

Similarly, FMB’s Topic Nos. 63 and 65 – catch all topics regarding each alleged

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV013090: CALIFORNIA STATE TEACHERS' RETIREMENT SYSTEM, A PART OF CALIFORNIA'S GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS AGENCY vs DPR CONSTRUCTION, A GENERAL PARTNERSHIP, A CALIFORNIA GENERAL PARTNERSHIP, et al. 07/10/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses in Department 8B

misrepresentation and each alleged act of conspiracy – lack reasonable particularity and are stricken. To the extent FMB also includes catch-all provisions like “any other document or instance in which you allege FMB made a misrepresentation” in its topics, it also lacks reasonable particularity. That phrase is stricken from FMB’s topics such that they can otherwise proceed as to the specific representations, assertions, and/or contract documents mentioned.

Remaining Objections. To the extent that CalSTRS maintains that the requested discovery is duplicative and/or unreasonably burdensome (See Opp. re DPR GP Mot., pp. 7:10-8:9; Opp. re FMB Mot., p. 8:4-27), the Court is not persuaded.[3] The previously conducted depositions did not cover the same topics with the same specificity sought through the PMQ depositions at issue here. As the Court has seen throughout the motion practice to date, that testimony was often generalized, rather than focused on particular statements in particular documents, let alone the specific factual circumstances surrounding them.

Even CalSTRS’s characterization of the topics already covered demonstrates that generality: Project administration, payment applications, audits, owner change orders, project scheduling, communications, DPR GP’s requests for payment, DPR GP’s requests for additional compensation, Ridge’s and CalSTRS’s management of the Project. procedures for review and payment of Certificates for Payment, procedures concerning PCI requests, audits, Ridge reports, project scheduling, review of design changes, and project administration generally. (Thiel Decl.

ISO Opp. to DPR GP’s Mot., ¶¶ 16-18; Thiel Decl. ISO Opp. to FMB’s Mot., ¶¶ 9-11.)

A defendant is “entitled to discover any nonprivileged information, cumulative or not, that may reasonably assist it in evaluating its defense, preparing for trial, or facilitating a settlement.” (TBG Ins. Services Corp. v. Superior Court (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 443, 448-449.) Pursuant to CCP section 2019.030, the Court shall restrict the use of a discovery method if the Court determines that the “discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or is obtainable from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive” or the “selected method of discovery is unduly burdensome or expensive, taking into account the needs of the case, the amount in controversy, and the importance of the issues at stake in the litigation.” (CCP, § 2019.030(a)(1) and (2) [emphasis added].)

Thus, even if it is somewhat cumulative, the Court is not persuaded that it is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative. Moreover, regarding burden, CalSTRS fails to support the objection with any competent evidence. (See West Pico Furniture Co. v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 407, 417-418 [“The objection based upon burden must be sustained by evidence showing the quantum of work required”].) Thus, the Court is not persuaded that the requested discovery is unduly burdensome under the circumstances of this case.

***

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV013090: CALIFORNIA STATE TEACHERS' RETIREMENT SYSTEM, A PART OF CALIFORNIA'S GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS AGENCY vs DPR CONSTRUCTION, A GENERAL PARTNERSHIP, A CALIFORNIA GENERAL PARTNERSHIP, et al. 07/10/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses in Department 8B

Except as specified above, the Court orders that the PMQ depositions shall proceed, with the express directive that the actual questions posed to the PMQ(s) shall not be legal contention questions and shall only seek the underlying facts within CalSTRS’s knowledge. Reframing the deposition notices in this manner is a practical solution squarely within the Court’s discretion that allows the depositions to go forward, while reserving on any Rifkind issues actually presented by the questions asked during the depositions. (See Sabetian, supra, 57 Cal.App.5th at pp. 1085-1086.)

To provide the parties a definitive resolution now, and to avoid another round of amended notices, renewed objections, and motion practice, the Court does not require Defendants to serve amended deposition notices. Instead, the Court adopts the following uniform construction, which applies to every surviving topic in both notices by operation of this Order; no re-service is required.

Wherever a topic is introduced by “all facts, documents, and witnesses relating to,” “the factual basis for YOUR allegation [or contention] that,” or any equivalent contention-styled preamble, that preamble is deemed replaced with “CalSTRS’s knowledge of the facts and circumstances concerning,” followed unchanged by the specific representation, assertion, document, transaction, and complaint reference already identified in that topic. The substantive identifier of each topic is not altered. Instead, only the framing is converted from a marshaling of the evidence supporting a contention to CalSTRS’s percipient and organizational knowledge of the identified matter.

To be clear, this new framing does not require the witness to marshal, organize, rank, or catalog the evidence CalSTRS contends supports a legal element or theory, to opine on the ultimate truth or falsity of a representation as a legal conclusion, or to explain how counsel rationalizes the facts as supporting a contention; those matters remain the province of interrogatories under Rifkind. Because the operative phrase carries this same defined meaning in every topic, the construction applies uniformly across both the DPR GP and FMB notices without the need to rewrite the topics individually.

To illustrate, DPR GP’s Topic No. 10 – “The factual basis for YOUR allegation that DPR GP allegedly misrepresented in its payment applications that ‘CONTRACTOR was on schedule to complete the PROJECT on or before’ a certain date, as alleged throughout YOUR COMPLAINT in the context of Payment Application Nos. 10 through 67” – is construed to read:

CalSTRS’s knowledge of the facts and circumstances concerning DPR GP’s representation, in Payment Application Nos. 10 through 67, that ‘CONTRACTOR was on schedule to complete the PROJECT on or before’ a certain date.

So construed, the topic calls for CalSTRS’s percipient and organizational knowledge of the facts

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV013090: CALIFORNIA STATE TEACHERS' RETIREMENT SYSTEM, A PART OF CALIFORNIA'S GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS AGENCY vs DPR CONSTRUCTION, A GENERAL PARTNERSHIP, A CALIFORNIA GENERAL PARTNERSHIP, et al. 07/10/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses in Department 8B

and circumstances concerning that identified representation. Framing the inquiry as the alleged falsity of the representation does not enlarge the obligation beyond CalSTRS’s percipient knowledge.

Likewise, DPR GP’s Topic No. 11 – “The factual basis for YOUR allegation that ‘CONTRACTOR and SUBCONTRACTORS all acted in concert and came to a mutual understanding and agreement to present one or more misrepresentations to CALSTRS as true, and all agreed that CONTRACTOR would include such representations’ in its payment applications, as alleged throughout YOUR COMPLAINT in the context of Payment Application Nos. 10 through 67” – is construed to read:

CalSTRS’s knowledge of the facts and circumstances concerning whether CONTRACTOR and SUBCONTRACTORS acted in concert and came to a mutual understanding and agreement to present one or more misrepresentations to CalSTRS as true, and agreed that CONTRACTOR would include such representations in its payment applications, in the context of Payment Application Nos. 10 through 67.

This example illustrates how the construction operates for a topic that concerns an alleged agreement, knowledge, or intent. So construed, the topic calls for CalSTRS’s percipient and organizational knowledge of the facts bearing on the alleged agreement or state of mind, as defined above. Consistent with this Order and Rifkind, CalSTRS’s witness may testify that CalSTRS has no percipient knowledge of the alleged agreement, understanding, or intent beyond the allegations of the Complaint, and may identify whatever facts CalSTRS did observe; the witness is not required to marshal the circumstantial evidence into a case for the existence of the agreement, or to opine that a conspiracy or the requisite intent existed.

This construction is well within the Court’s broad discretion to formulate the terms on which discovery proceeds. (CCP, § 2025.420(b); Credit One Bank, N.A., supra, 112 Cal.App.5th at 813.) Should CalSTRS decline to designate and produce a witness on the topics as so construed, that refusal will be without substantial justification and may warrant sanctions.

Disposition

For the reasons set forth above, DPR GP and FMB’s motions to compel are GRANTED, in part, and DENIED, in part.

Regarding DPR GP’s PMQ deposition notice, the Court rules as follows: The PMQ deposition shall proceed as to Topic Nos. 1-50, which – for the avoidance of any doubt – shall be construed as seeking only CalSTRS’s knowledge of the facts regarding the specified representations and/or

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV013090: CALIFORNIA STATE TEACHERS' RETIREMENT SYSTEM, A PART OF CALIFORNIA'S GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS AGENCY vs DPR CONSTRUCTION, A GENERAL PARTNERSHIP, A CALIFORNIA GENERAL PARTNERSHIP, et al. 07/10/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses in Department 8B

assertions. Topic Nos. 51-53 are stricken.

Regarding FMB’s PMQ deposition notice, the Court rules as follows: The PMQ deposition shall proceed as to Topic Nos. 1-62, and 64, which – for the avoidance of any doubt – shall be construed as seeking only CalSTRS’s knowledge of the facts regarding the specified representations and/or assertions. Topic Nos. 63 and 65 are stricken, as are any catch-all references to other, unspecified documents.

The depositions shall be scheduled for no later than August 10, 2026, absent a showing of good cause and leave of Court. The Parties shall promptly meet and confer to select mutually agreeable date(s) before that deadline. The Court will not require it, but the Parties remain free to negotiate a staged approach, such as proceeding with FMB’s deposition before DPR GP’s, or proceeding as to subsets of topics across multiple sessions and/or deponents. The Court expects the Parties to work in good faith to complete these depositions expeditiously.

Having so ruled, the Parties competing requests for sanctions are DENIED.

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (CCP, § 1019.5; CRC Rule 3.1312.)

[1] DPR GP’s original notice included five topics regarding CalSTRS’s allegations of fraud

regarding the payment applications and four OCOs at issue, including specific references to the paragraphs in CalSTRS’s complaint. (Dillon Decl., ¶ 2, Exh. 1 [at pdf p. 27].) [2] Notably, it appears that the Parties have used that framing in PMQ deposition notices without

it becoming an issue in the past. (See Thiel Decl. ISO Opp. to DPR GP’s Mot., ¶ 19, Exh. G.) It is not clear why this preamble language became an issue for these deposition notices. [3] While CalSTRS raised other objections in response to the notices, CalSTRS’s oppositions

only argue that the notices are improper because the topics lack of reasonable particularity; seek improper contention testimony; and the discovery sought is duplicative and unreasonably burdensome. Accordingly, the Court does not address any other objections previously raised.

To request oral argument on this matter, you must call Department 8B at (916) 874-5762 by 4:00 p.m., the court day before this hearing and notification of oral argument must be made to the opposing party/counsel. If no call is made, the tentative ruling becomes the order of the court. (Local Rule 1.06.)

Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV013090: CALIFORNIA STATE TEACHERS' RETIREMENT SYSTEM, A PART OF CALIFORNIA'S GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS AGENCY vs DPR CONSTRUCTION, A GENERAL PARTNERSHIP, A CALIFORNIA GENERAL PARTNERSHIP, et al. 07/10/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses in Department 8B

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. Parties may contact Court-Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore.

If you are not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list, a Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) must be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge. The signed form must be filed with the clerk prior to the hearing.

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). The form must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the hearing is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

If oral argument is requested, the Parties are encouraged to appear via Zoom with the links below:

To join by Zoom link - https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16184738886 To join by phone dial (833) 568-8864 ID 16184738886

Moving Counsel is directed to notice all parties of this order.

Please note that the Complex Civil Case Department now provides information to assist you in managing your complex case on the Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/divisions/civil/complex-civil-cases. The Court strongly encourages parties to review this website regularly to stay abreast of the most recent complex civil case procedures. Please refer to the website before directly contacting the Court Clerk for information.