DUMITRU vs PEARL MATERIALS, INC., et al.

24CV015979: DUMITRU vs PEARL MATERIALS, INC., et al. 07/29/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel def Pearl Materials, Inc. to Provide Further Responses to Form Interrogatories 15.1 and 17.1, Set One in Department 8D

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 Department 8D Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-7719 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 8D Zoom Link is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16113421868 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 1342 1868. 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 on the Court Reporter Services webpage available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://saccourt.ca.gov/general-information/court-reporter-servicestranscripts. Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://saccourt.ca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/227/639084034465370000.

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

24CV015979: DUMITRU vs PEARL MATERIALS, INC., et al. 07/29/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel def Pearl Materials, Inc. to Provide Further Responses to Form Interrogatories 15.1 and 17.1, Set One in Department 8D

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

*** EFFECTIVE APRIL 13, 2026, THIS DEPARTMENT HAS MOVED TO THE TANI G. CANTIL-SAKAUYE COURTHOUSE LOCATED AT 500 G STREET IN SACRAMENTO, CA 95814. ALL HEARINGS NOTICED FOR DEPARTMENT 25 WILL BE HEARD IN DEPARTMENT 8D OF THE NEW COURTHOUSE. ***

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Kevin Dumitru’s (“Plaintiff”) motion to compel Defendant Pearl Materials, Inc. dba Thompson Building Materials’ (“Defendant”) further responses to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories, Set One, Nos. 15.1 and 17.1 and for monetary sanctions is ruled upon as follows.

On June 24, 2026, the parties were ordered to further meet-and-confer regarding the atissue form interrogatories. On June 17, 2026, the parties filed a joint statement indicating that their dispute with respect to form interrogatory no. 15.1 is “partially resolved” and their dispute with respect to form interrogatory no. 17.1 is resolved.

Thus, in light of the parties’ successful meet and confer efforts on form interrogatory no. 17.1, the Court need not rule on form on that issue.

With respect for form interrogatory no. 15.1, Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses is GRANTED.

Form interrogatory no. 15.1 asks for all of the facts, witnesses, and documents that support any denial of Plaintiff's material allegations or Defendant’s affirmative defenses.

Defendant states:

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV015979: DUMITRU vs PEARL MATERIALS, INC., et al. 07/29/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel def Pearl Materials, Inc. to Provide Further Responses to Form Interrogatories 15.1 and 17.1, Set One in Department 8D

Plaintiff argues that Defendant Pearl Materials’ response indicated that they did not witness the Subject Incident is an indication of “willful ignorance” as Pearl Materials has the “obligation to interview Esparza and otherwise investigate the circumstances of the collision.” Defendant Pearl Materials incorporates by way of reference Defendant Esparza’s aforementioned response relevant to Form Interrogatory 15.1. Defendant Pearl Materials will produce a second round of further amended responses the week of July 20, 2027.

(Joint Statement at p. 6:9-14.)

Defendant appears to concede that further responses are required, but incorporates co- Defendant Juan Ramon Esparza’s response to the interrogatory. To the extent Defendant contends that this interrogatory is “premature,” such objection is overruled as Defendant provides no legal authority to support his contention that he may refuse to fully respond to form interrogatory no. 15 on the ground that it is “premature” or because additional evidence may become available later.

In order to comply with its obligations under the Discovery act, Defendant must identify each material allegation that it denies and each affirmative defense it has asserted, and then answer subparts (a) through (c) of the interrogatory.

Defendant is ordered to provide further verified, amended responses to this interrogatory by no later than August 12, 2026.

The Court finds that Defendant’s opposition to the motion was not substantially justified, especially in light of Defendant’s failure to provide any legal authority that would support its objections to the Judicial Council approved form interrogatory as “premature” and in light of its evasive and incomplete answers. Additionally, the Court finds that Defendant’s further meet and confer efforts were inadequate as Defendant continued to assert a legally unsupported position rather than attempt to resolve the issue in good faith. Indeed, Defendant fails to identify any compromise that it made in connection with the instant interrogatory that would support an argument that it attempted to resolve this issue informally.

Thus, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s request for sanctions against Defendant and his attorneys in the amount of $560, which represents 1 hour of attorney time at $500 per hour plus the $60 filing fee.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV015979: DUMITRU vs PEARL MATERIALS, INC., et al. 07/29/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel def Pearl Materials, Inc. to Provide Further Responses to Form Interrogatories 15.1 and 17.1, Set One in Department 8D

Sanctions to be paid no later than August 31, 2026. If not paid by that date, Plaintiff 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.)