PATIDAR vs SINGH, et al.

25CV018154: PATIDAR vs SINGH, et al. 02/05/2026 Hearing on Motion to Quash Deposition Subpoena in Department 53

Tentative Ruling

NOTICE:

Consistent with Local Rule 1.06(B), any party requesting oral argument on any matter on this calendar must comply with the following procedure:

To request limited oral argument, on any matter on this calendar, you 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 and advise opposing counsel. At the time of requesting oral argument, the requesting party shall leave a voice mail 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 it has notified the opposing party of its intention to appear and that opposing party may appear via Zoom using the Zoom link and Meeting ID indicated below. If no request for oral argument is made, the tentative ruling becomes the final order of the Court.

Unless ordered to appear in person by the Court, parties may appear remotely either telephonically or by video conference via the Zoom video/audio conference platform with notice to the Court and all other parties in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure §367.75. Although remote participation is not required, the Court will presume all parties are appearing remotely for non-evidentiary civil hearings.

The Department 53 Zoom Link is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept53.54 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 4650 6749. To appear on Zoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID referenced above. NO COURTCALL APPEARANCES WILL BE ACCEPTED.

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

25CV018154: PATIDAR vs SINGH, et al. 02/05/2026 Hearing on Motion to Quash Deposition Subpoena in Department 53

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 forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

TENTATIVE RULING:

*** The Court finds in its file no proof of service demonstrating moving defendant’s service of the Notice of Disclosure issued on 11/13/2025, despite being directed to serve all other parties with the Notice of Disclosure “forthwith.” Moving defendant is directed to serve the Notice of Disclosure on all other parties forthwith and to file proof of service within five (5) court days. ***

Although the notice of motion provides notice of the Court’s tentative ruling system as required by Local Rule 1.06, the notice does not comply with that rule. More specifically, while Local Rule 2.47 pertains to “CMP Tentative Rulings,” Local Rule 1.06 pertains to matters which are heard in this Court’s various law & motion departments and the requirements of each rule are different. Moving counsel directed to review the Local Court Rules, effective 7/1/2025.

The motion of defendant AS Hospitality LLC and “Consumer, Raviinder Singh” to quash the two deposition subpoenas for business records previously issued by plaintiff Patidar is GRANTED and DENIED in parts, as follows.

This is an action for specific performance of a contract for the purchase/sale of commercial property located in Rancho Cordova. Plaintiff filed the initial complaint on 7/30/2025 and filed an amended complaint on 8/29/2025. On that same date, plaintiff served two separate deposition subpoenas for business records from third parties Neville H. Parujanwala and Pramukh Swami, Inc., both of which specified a production date of 9/29/2025.

On 9/18/2025, the present motion was filed in order to obtain an order quashing both of the aforementioned deposition subpoenas on the grounds that no defendant had (as of 9/18/2025) been served with the summons & complaint and that California law precludes any deposition from being taken until at least 20 days after service on, or appearance by, any defendant unless leave of court is obtained. (See, e.g., Code Civ. Proc. §2025.210(b).) Thus, according to the moving papers, both subpoenas “are premature and void and should be quashed under Code of Civil Procedure section 1987.1, with an appropriate protective order and stay of compliance pending hearing” on this motion to quash. (Not. of Mot., p.2:22-24; see also, Mov.

MPA, p.3:9-17.) Moving parties also request monetary sanctions of $7,628 for bringing this motion and opposing plaintiff’s prior ex parte application for injunctive relief.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV018154: PATIDAR vs SINGH, et al. 02/05/2026 Hearing on Motion to Quash Deposition Subpoena in Department 53

Plaintiff opposes, arguing that an order quashing the two subpoenas is “no longer applicable or appropriate” insofar as both subpoenas were promptly withdrawn shortly after receipt of this motion. Still, the opposition contends that this motion to quash was “not proper due to [moving] counsel’s failure to meet and confer” as required by Code of Civil Procedure §2025.210” and that the subpoenas also were not premature or void under §2025.210(b). Plaintiff further asserts that moving parties are not entitled to monetary sanctions either for this motion to quash or for opposing plaintiff’s prior ex parte application for injunctive relief and that plaintiff is entitled to sanctions because moving parties failed to withdraw this motion to quash once the subpoenas were withdrawn.

The opposition also includes a request for monetary sanctions against the moving parties but does not specify the sum which is sought.

In their reply, moving parties insist plaintiff’s “mootness argument fails” insofar as withdrawal of the subpoenas after forcing the filing of this motion does not “eliminate the controversy” or “preclude protective relief and sanctions,” especially when plaintiff proceeded to obtain the subpoenaed documents “informally.”

Discussion

At the outset, the Court must reject the opposition’s suggestion that this motion has been rendered “moot” by virtue of plaintiff’s withdrawal of the subject subpoenas on 9/22/2025. Code of Civil Procedure §1005.5 specifically provides that a motion is deemed made at the time it is filed and served and here, the opposition concedes the subject subpoenas at issue in this motion were not actually withdrawn until 9/22/2025, well after this motion was filed and served on 9/18/2025. Consequently, this motion cannot be considered “moot” within the meaning of §1005.5.

Still, the Court construes plaintiff’s withdrawal of the two deposition subpoenas at issue on 9/22/2025 as a concession that these subpoenas were either improper or deficient in some respect and/or that the present motion to quash was substantially justified under the circumstances. Accordingly, the present motion to quash the two deposition subpoenas issued on 8/29/2025 is hereby GRANTED.

However, the Court declines to grant here any additional relief relative to the subpoenaed documents which plaintiff may have obtained on an informal basis despite the withdrawal of the two subpoenas. Moving parties may, after completing reasonable and good faith meet-and-confer efforts, file and serve an appropriate motion if a satisfactory resolution cannot be reached.

Moving parties’ request for monetary sanctions is DENIED. First, the Court finds no reasonable or valid justification for their request for $3,828 in attorney fees incurred in

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV018154: PATIDAR vs SINGH, et al. 02/05/2026 Hearing on Motion to Quash Deposition Subpoena in Department 53

opposing plaintiff’s prior ex parte application for injunctive relief, which fees are unrelated to the present motion to quash and the two deposition subpoenas at issue. Second, moving parties’ request for monetary sanctions in the amount of $3,800 for bringing the present motion to quash is unreasonably excessive under the circumstances especially when such fees could potentially have been avoided altogether if a good faith meet-and-confer attempt had been made prior to filing this motion, given that plaintiff voluntarily withdrew the deposition subpoenas shortly after receipt of the moving papers. Finally, the Court finds that plaintiff’s opposition was substantially justified and that the imposition of sanctions against plaintiff and/or plaintiff’s counsel is not warranted under the circumstances here.

Plaintiff’s own request for monetary sanctions is likewise DENIED. The opposition does not specify the amount sought nor does the sole declaration in opposition provide plaintiff’s counsel’s hourly rate or the amount of fees incurred in preparing the opposition. Regardless, the present motion to quash was substantially justified and the imposition of sanctions against moving parties and/or their counsel is not justified given the circumstances of this case.

Moving parties to provide notice of this ruling and file proof of service of same within five (5) court days.

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