Motion for Protective Order; Sanctions
July 17, 2026 Dept. 9 Civil Tentative Rulings
9. 25CV1097 PHILLIP LIIMATTA ET AL VS. JOHN WILLIAMS EVANS ET AL MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND SANCTIONS
The Notice does not comply with Local Rules 7.10.05. Repeated violations will be grounds for sanctions pursuant to Local Rule 7.12.13.
This matter arises from two motions for protective orders and requests for monetary sanctions filed by Defendants, Jared Evans and John William Evans (collectively “Defendants’). The Court issued a tentative ruling on May 15, 2026, directing the parties to meet and confer and file a status report with the Court before June 22, 2026. Defendants filed a Status Report on June 18, 2026. No Status Report has been filed by Plaintiffs.
Defendants’ counsel describes attempts to meet and confer with Plaintiffs’ counsel. Of note, the Parties had a lengthy conversation regarding their discovery disputes and Defendants’ motion for protective Order. Following the call, Defendants’ counsel sent Plaintiffs’ counsel an outline of all outstanding issues. Plaintiffs’ counsel responded noting that he does not believe Defendants’ counsel summarized their position, which is outlined in their separate statement. Plaintiffs’ counsel requested Defendants’ counsel’s availability to finish meeting and conferring. No further efforts to meet and confer have been made.
The Court finds the meet and confer efforts to be inadequate. The Court therefore orders the following: Parties are to immediately begin the meet and confer process on Defendants’ motions for protective orders. The parties are ordered to meet and confer on video conference or in person in a good faith effort to resolve each matter on an item-by-item basis. Both parties are referred to standards of professionalism and civility as discussed in Townsend v. Superior Court (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1431, 1439; and Manzetti v. Superior Court (1993) 21 Cal.App.4th 373, 380, fn.8. The meet and confer meeting(s) is to be recorded and the recording is to be made available to the Court at the hearing. All parties/attorneys are ordered to make the recording or may all agree to only one party making the recording.
No later than August 21, 2026, the parties shall file a JOINT status report of no more than 5 pages outlining which, if any, items remain in dispute and why, including any request for sanctions. Failure to sign and participate in drafting the joint report will open each side to monetary sanctions of for failure to follow this Order pursuant to
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
July 17, 2026 Dept. 9 Civil Tentative Rulings
Parties shall explain the amount of monetary sanctions sought and the reasons why within the joint status report such that the court can address the same in any subsequent order individually. The court reminds the parties that it is not enough to refer the court back to the original papers or to other papers filed in association with each matter or previous status report. Moreover, the joint status report(s) should proceed to list items remaining in dispute along with the legal reason(s) why. The parties shall submit a joint status report that complies with CRC 3.1345 which explains why a specific request is in dispute and each party’s position.
Parties should be careful to delineate the items in dispute in such a way that the Court will be fully aware as to which set of discovery the item in dispute is referring. If an item is not specifically listed and briefed with applicable points and authorities in the joint status report, the Court will assume that the issue has been resolved. The parties are required to be reasonable in this process or face additional monetary sanctions. A courtesy copy of the joint status report(s) shall be delivered electronically to Department 9.
The hearing on this motion is scheduled on August 28, 2026 at 8:30 AM in Department 9.
TENTATIVE RULING #9: DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDERS AND SANCTIONS ARE CONTINUED TO AUGUST 28, 2026 AT 8:30 A.M. IN DEPARTMENT 9. PARTIES AND COUNSEL ARE ORDERED TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT’S ORDER TO MEET AND CONFER AS OUTLINED IN THE TENTATIVE RULING.
NO HEARING ON THIS MATTER WILL BE HELD UNLESS A REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT IS TRANSMITTED ELECTRONICALLY THROUGH THE COURT’S WEBSITE OR BY TELEPHONE TO THE COURT AT (530) 621-6551 BY 4:00 P.M. ON THE DAY THE TENTATIVE RULING IS ISSUED. CAL. RULE CT. 3.1308; LOCAL RULE 8.05.07; SEE ALSO LEWIS V. SUPERIOR COURT, 19 CAL.4TH 1232, 1247 (1999).
NOTICE TO ALL PARTIES OF A REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT AND THE GROUNDS UPON WHICH ARGUMENT IS BEING REQUESTED MUST BE MADE BY TELEPHONE OR IN PERSON BY 4:00 P.M. ON THE DAY THE TENTATIVE RULING IS ISSUED. CAL. RULE CT. 3.1308; EL DORADO COUNTY LOCAL RULE 8.05.07. PROOF OF SERVICE OF SAID NOTICE MUST BE FILED PRIOR TO OR AT THE HEARING.
LONG CAUSE HEARINGS MUST BE REQUESTED BY 4:00 P.M. ON THE DAY THE TENTATIVE RULING IS ISSUED AND THE PARTIES ARE TO PROVIDE THE COURT WITH THREE MUTUALLY AGREEABLE DATES ON FRIDAY AFTERNOONS AT 2:30 P.M. LONG CAUSE ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTS WILL BE SET FOR HEARING ON ONE OF THE THREE MUTUALLY AGREEABLE DATES ON FRIDAY AFTERNOONS AT 2:30 P.M. THE COURT WILL ADVISE THE PARTIES OF THE LONG
July 17, 2026 Dept. 9 Civil Tentative Rulings
CAUSE HEARING DATE AND TIME BY 5:00 P.M. ON THE DAY THE TENTATIVE RULING IS ISSUED. PARTIES MAY PERSONALLY APPEAR AT THE HEARING.
45