Sean Michael Pelton vs. AT&T Corporation and it’s affiliate companies

34-2023-00333371-CU-MC-GDS: Sean Michael Pelton vs. AT&T Corporation and it's affiliate companies 2700 Watt Ave. 95821 07/15/2025 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses to Responses to Request for Production of Documents 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 53/54 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.

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

34-2023-00333371-CU-MC-GDS: Sean Michael Pelton vs. AT&T Corporation and it's affiliate companies 2700 Watt Ave. 95821 07/15/2025 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses to Responses to Request for Production of Documents 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 be forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

TENTATIVE RULING:

Oral Argument will take place on July 29, 2025, at 1:30 p.m., in this Department.

The Clerk shall fax a copy of this tentative ruling to the litigation coordinator. The litigation coordinator shall provide the tentative ruling to Plaintiff Sean Pelton within 48 hours.

The litigation coordinator is directed to have Plaintiff Sean Pelton available at oral argument on May 8, 2025, at 1:30 p.m. Appearance will be by ZOOM. Department 53 Zoom ID is: 161 4650 6749. To appear on Zoom by phone, call (833) 568-8864 and enter 161 4650 6749#. Appearance is required.

Self-represented Plaintiff Sean Pelton’s motion to compel Defendant Pacific Bell Telephone Company’s further responses to requests for production of documents is ruled on as follows.

Plaintiff moves to compel further responses to six requests for production of documents. Defendant initially provided responses, consisting entirely of objections, on January 16, 2025. (Pelton Decl., p. 1:10-12.) Plaintiff sent a meet and confer letter on January 12, 2025 questioning the sufficiency of the objections and inviting Defendant to meet and confer. (Id., p. 1:13-15.) Defendant indicates they received the letter in early February. (Davis Decl., ¶ 4.)

On February 16, 2025, as Plaintiff had not yet received a response to the meet and confer letter. Plaintiff therefore proceeded with filing this motion, which was received by the Court and filed on February 21, 2025. Defendant sent a meet-and-confer letter responding to Plaintiff on February 20, 205. (Davis Decl., ¶ 6.) However, at that time, the motion had already been filed. While the motion was pending, Defendant served supplemental responses and produced 85 pages of documents and 25 videos. (Davis Decl., ¶ 8.)

Defendant argues the motion should be denied because Plaintiff failed to meet and confer. The Court agrees that the meet-and-confer process was incomplete. However, the Court recognizes there may have been some delay possibly related to Plaintiff’s status as an incarcerated litigant. Plaintiff made a good faith effort to open meet-and-confer discussions, questioning Defendant’s objections, and waited a reasonable time for a response before filing this motion. Defendant

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2023-00333371-CU-MC-GDS: Sean Michael Pelton vs. AT&T Corporation and it's affiliate companies 2700 Watt Ave. 95821 07/15/2025 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses to Responses to Request for Production of Documents in Department 53

argues Plaintiff’s letter failed to explain why Defendant’s objections lack merit. However, the burden is on the party resisting discovery to justify objections. Thus, it was sufficient for Plaintiff, in the initial letter, to generally challenge the merit of the objections and to invite further discussion. In the future, the parties are encouraged to promptly discuss necessary extensions to facilitate the meet and confer process so that discovery issues can be formally resolved. On this occasion, however, the Court finds both parties made good faith efforts to meet and confer and will therefore consider the motion.

Defendant argues the motion should be denied as moot because Defendant served supplemental responses on June 26, 2025. The supplemental responses appear to include the same objections as the original responses. (Davis Decl., Exh. J.) Thus, the supplemental responses do not cure the defects alleged in this motion. Plaintiff could choose to challenge the objections by filing a further motion to compel directed at the supplemental responses. However, Plaintiff has not done so at this time. A motion is made at the time it is filed. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1005.5.) Thus, the Court will not deny the motion on this basis.

Defendant also argues the motion should be denied because it fails to fully comply with the requirements for a separate statement. As to this argument, the Court agrees.

A motion to compel further responses to a demand for inspection must be supported by a separate statement. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(a)(3).) The separate statement must set forth the text of the requests and responses in dispute, must contain a statement of factual and legal reasons for compelling further responses, and must provide other information and documents necessary to resolve the dispute. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(c).)

Plaintiff filed a separate statement setting forth the requests and responses in dispute. However, Plaintiff failed to provide a statement of the factual and legal reasons for compelling a further response. As the party resisting discovery, Defendant has the burden to justify objections. (Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255 citing Coy v. Superior Court (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220-221.) However, Plaintiff must still place the objections at issue by identifying which specific objections are being challenged. By failing to include the required statement of facts and law challenging the objections in the separate statement, Plaintiff failed to properly identify the scope of the issues in dispute and failed to place those issues in dispute.

The motion is denied based on Plaintiff’s failure to satisfy the requirements of a separate statement. As the motion is denied, Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is denied.

The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1312 or further notice is required.