BENNETT vs SACRAMENTO COUNTY JAIL, et al.

23CV005472: BENNETT vs SACRAMENTO COUNTY JAIL, et al. 09/11/2025 Hearing on Motion to Compel Production Discovery in Department 54

 “AMENDED NOTICE OF CLARIFICATIONS TO PRIOR DECLARATION” filed on August 6, 2025;  “AMENDED NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DISCOVERY AND FOR SANCTION” filed on August 6, 2025.

Plaintiff’s filings related to this motion are excessive.[1] This conduct by Plaintiff has made it unnecessarily difficult for the Court to parse through Plaintiff's arguments.

Plaintiff’s filings are further not a model of clarity (particularly considering the quantity of filings and that a number of filings are repetitive and/or seek to clarify previous, unidentified filings). The filing titled, “AMENDED NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DISCOVERY AND FOR SANCTION” filed on August 6, 2025” (“Amended Notice”) seeks an:

order compelling Defendants to produce all discovery wrongfully withheld, including but not limited to documents and recordings previously sought through subpoenas, California Public Records Act (CPRA) requests, and extended meet-and-confer efforts.

(Amended Notice 2:5-8.)

The Amended Notice further states that:

2. This motion is brought pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §§ 2023.010, 2023.030, 2031.300, and 1985 et seq., on the grounds that Defendants have willfully refused to comply with lawful discovery, repeatedly issued evasive and contradictory responses, and engaged in conduct tantamount to spoliation, deception, and calculated obstruction.

3. Plaintiff also respectfully requests monetary sanctions pursuant to § 2023.030(a) for misuse of the discovery process and violation of court obligations.

(Amended Notice at 2:9-14.)

Defendants oppose arguing that Plaintiff, by way of this motion, improperly seeks to enforce a “Non-Party Subpoena for Records and to compel further responses to several requests made under the California Public Records Act.” (Opposition at 1:27-28.)

Discussion

At the outset, the Court must note that Plaintiff has attached Exhibits A through H directly to his reply brief. A writing must be authenticated by declarations or other evidence establishing that

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV005472: BENNETT vs SACRAMENTO COUNTY JAIL, et al. 09/11/2025 Hearing on Motion to Compel Production Discovery in Department 54

the writing is what it purports to be. (Evid. Code, §§ 250, 1401(a).) In other words, Plaintiff’s exhibits submitted in reply are not supported by a declaration and are thus not authenticated. Additionally, it is generally improper to advance new evidence in reply papers, as this deprives the opposing party of the ability to respond to the evidence. (Jay v. Mahaffey (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 1522, 1537-1538; Neighbours v. Buzz Oates Enterprises (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 325, 335, fn. 8.) Accordingly, the Court did not consider the exhibits submitted by Plaintiff in reply.

The Court also must note that on September 5, 2025, Plaintiff filed an “Amended Reply in Support of Motion to Compel Discovery” (“Amended Reply”). Plaintiff explains in this filing that the Amended Reply “includes the referenced exhibits that were omitted from the version filed yesterday. The corrected filing ensures the Court has the complete record before it. No prejudice results to any party, and the inclusion of these exhibits promotes clarity and truth in the proceedings.” (Amended Reply at p. 1.)

First, this Amended Reply is untimely. Reply papers are due 5 court days before the hearing. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1005, subd. (b).) Here, the Amended Reply was filed on September 5, 2025, just 4 court days before the hearing. Further, an “amended” brief is not the correct procedure to correct minor errors. In the future, if Plaintiff needs to correct typographical errors, include inadvertently omitted exhibits, or make minor, unsubstantial changes Plaintiff is instructed to file a notice of errata. Nonetheless, the Court in its discretion considered each of Plaintiff’s filings in reply (although, as discussed above, the Court did not consider the unauthenticated exhibits submitted in reply).

As a final threshold matter, the Court acknowledges that Plaintiff is a pro per litigant. However, status as a pro per litigant does not entitle Plaintiff to special treatment due to his lack of legal training or experience. (See, e.g., Nelson v. Gaunt (1981) 125 Cal.App.3d 623, 638-639.) Instead, self-represented litigants are required to follow the procedural rules that govern civil litigation (see, e.g., McComber v. Wells (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 512, 522-523) and are to be treated like any other party, entitled to the same but no greater consideration than other litigants or attorneys (see, e.g., Nwosu v.

Uba (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1229, 1246-1247; Barton v. New United Motor Manufacturing, Inc. (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 1200, 1210). In fact, at least one appellate decision states that a rule either requiring or permitting special treatment of parties who represent themselves 'would lead to a quagmire in the trial courts, and would be unfair to the other parties to litigation.' (Kobayashi v. Superior Court (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 536, 543.)

The Court now evaluates the relief requested in Plaintiff’s Amended Notice.

As mentioned, Plaintiff seeks an order compelling Defendant to produce “all discovery wrongfully withheld” including discovery sought “through subpoenas, California Public Records Act requests and extended meet and confer efforts.” Plaintiff’s Amended Notice states that the motion is brought pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 2023.010, 2023.030, 2031.300,

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV005472: BENNETT vs SACRAMENTO COUNTY JAIL, et al. 09/11/2025 Hearing on Motion to Compel Production Discovery in Department 54

and 1985 et seq.

First, to the extent Plaintiff seeks an order compelling any further discovery pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.010 and 2023.030, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED. These sections concern the misuse of discovery and merely allow the Court to impose sanctions. It does not authorize an order compelling any discovery.

Second, to the extent Plaintiff seeks an order compelling any further discovery pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.300, such a request is also DENIED. This section concerns demands for inspection. However, Plaintiff does not claim to have propounded a proper request for production of documents or inspection under Section 2031.010, et seq., much less does Plaintiff establish that Defendants have failed to respond to such discovery request, and that the parties have adequately met and conferred regarding such a discovery request, all of which are required before any motion to compel pursuant to this section can be brought.

Third, to the extent that Plaintiff seeks an order compelling any further discovery pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1985 et seq., such a request is also DENIED. Plaintiff seems to be seeking documents and recording(s) sought through subpoenas. However, it is not readily apparent which subpoenas Plaintiff seeks to enforce.

As best as the Court can glean, Plaintiff appears to be seeking to compel compliance with a subpoena prepared on Judicial Council form SUBP-001 and issued on July 29, 2024, and a subpoena prepared on Judicial Council form SUBP-002 and issued on August 6, 2024. Plaintiff has attached these subpoenas as Exhibit F to three of his filings, including his filing titled DECLARATION OF AUSTIN BENNETT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOERY [sic] AND FOR SANCITONS, filed July 30, 2025 as well as two of his other filings made in connection with this motion.[2] At the outset, the Court must first note that although Plaintiff included these subpoenas as “Exhibit F” to three different filings, Plaintiff has failed to provide the Court with a full and complete copy of these subpoenas.

Rather, each copy attached to Exhibit F is a partial copy of only the first page of the subpoena. Additionally, it is not clear from Plaintiff’s filings that these subpoenas were properly served on Defendants.

In opposition, Defendants state that Plaintiff is seeking to “compel compliance with a trial subpoena, prepared on Judicial Council Form SUBP-002 and dated 8/12/24” (Opposition at 3:10-11) which Defendant attached as Exhibit B to the Declaration of Kristlenne C. Vicuna (“Vicuna Declaration”). Review of Exhibit B indicates that this is a full copy of the partial copy of the subpoena issued August 6, 2024 and attached as Exhibit F to Plaintiff’s filings. Defendants further state that that Plaintiff is also attempting to enforce “a 3/12/25 nonparty subpoena, prepared on Judicial Council form SUBP-010 and dated 3/12/25” (Opposition at 3:17-18) which Defendants attached as Exhibit C to the Vicuna Declaration.

First, as to the partial copy of the subpoena issued on July 29, 2024 attached only as Exhibit F to

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV005472: BENNETT vs SACRAMENTO COUNTY JAIL, et al. 09/11/2025 Hearing on Motion to Compel Production Discovery in Department 54

Plaintiff’s filing, Plaintiff failed to demonstrate that this subpoena was properly served. Moreover, even if the subpoena was properly served, it appears to the Court that the subpoena is incomplete and thus defective as the name of the deponent is blank as is the date of production.

As to the other two subpoenas (i.e., the subpoenas issued August 6, 2024, and March 6, 2025 which were included as Exhibit F to Plaintiff’s filings and Exhibits B and C to the Vicuna Declaration), the Court agrees with Defendants that the subpoenas are defective as the name of the witness/deponent, is blank, and as to the subpoena issued March 6, 2025, the date of production of the business records is blank. It is also not clear that the subpoenas were properly served since, as argued by Defendants in opposition, the name of the person(s) served on the proof of service is blank.

The Court disagrees with Plaintiff that these defects are merely technical defects which the Court should overlook because “substance not form governs discovery obligations.” (Reply at 9:7-15; Amended Reply at 10:21-22.) Rather, these material defects on the face of the subpoenas. Indeed, a party cannot be compelled to comply with a deposition subpoena to produce business records when there is no date for production. Also, a Court cannot compel compliance with a subpoena which was not properly served.

It was Plaintiff’s burden to demonstrate that the discovery which he is seeking to compel was properly served.

In addition, as Defendants correctly point out in opposition, the subpoena issued on August 6, 2024 is a trial subpoena and as there is no trial date, such a subpoena is premature. Similarly, the March 6, 2025 subpoena is a non-party subpoena but Defendants are not non-parties to this action but named defendants.

Fourth, to the extent that Plaintiff seeks an order compelling Defendants to produce documents requested in any Public Records Act request(s) made by Plaintiff, such a request is DENIED. There is no cause of action at issue (nor any consolidated writ of mandate proceeding) alleging Defendants’ improper failure to comply with any Public Records Act request. Further, a Public Records Act request is not part of the Civil Discovery Act upon which a motion to compel can be made.

Finally, the Court reminds Plaintiff that the notice of motion must state in writing the “grounds upon which it will be made.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 1010.) Only the grounds specified in the notice of motion may be considered by the trial court. (Taliaferro v. Riddle (1959) 167 Cal.App.2d 567, 570; Carrasco v. Craft (1985) 164 Cal.App.3d 796, 808.) Accordingly, to the extent Plaintiff seeks to compel discovery on any basis not included in his Amended Notice, such request is denied as not being properly before the Court.

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is DENIED as the motion to compel discovery is denied. The Court further notes that Plaintiff’s Amended Notice of Motion does not comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.040. It provides: “A request for a sanction shall, in the notice of motion, identify every person, party, and attorney against whom the sanction is sought, and

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV005472: BENNETT vs SACRAMENTO COUNTY JAIL, et al. 09/11/2025 Hearing on Motion to Compel Production Discovery in Department 54

specify the type of sanctions sought.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.040.) Here, Plaintiff’s Amended Notice of Motion does not state against whom the sanction is sought.

In sum, for the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED in its entirety.

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.)

[1] In reply, Plaintiff made three additional filings consisting of: “Reply in Support of Motion to

Compel Discovery,” filed on September 4, 2025, “Declaration ISO MTC Discovery,” filed on September 4, 2025, and “Amended Reply in Support of Motion to Compel Discovery,” filed on September 5, 2025. [2] The Court observes that these subpoenas are also attached to Plaintiff’s filings titled

“DECLARATION OF AUSTIN BENNETT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOERY [sic] AND FOR SANCTIONS,” filed August 5, 2025 and “AMENDED DECLARATION OF AUSTIN BENNETT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOERY [sic] AND FOR SANCITONS” filed on August 6, 2025.

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 53/54 Zoom Link is https://saccourt-cagov.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.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV005472: BENNETT vs SACRAMENTO COUNTY JAIL, et al. 09/11/2025 Hearing on Motion to Compel Production Discovery in Department 54

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