Kelley Roberts vs. Rehana Harborth

34-2022-00319058-CU-MC-GDS: Kelley Roberts vs. Rehana Harborth 05/14/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other Motion to Compel Further Testimony and Overrule Objections in Department 16C

Tentative Ruling

NOTICE:

The Sacramento Superior Court has transitioned operations from the Gordon D. Schaber and Hall of Justice buildings to the new Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye Courthouse through a phased move plan beginning on April 13, 2026. Visit the court’s website at www.saccourt.ca.gov for the most current and up to date information regarding the transition. The physical and mailing address of the new downtown courthouse is:

Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye Courthouse 500 G Street Sacramento, CA 95814

Please take notice, effective April 13, 2026, Department 54 has moved to Department 16C at the Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye Courthouse. The Honorable Christopher E. Krueger remains presiding over all Home Court proceedings, including Case Management and Law & Motion. All hearings currently scheduled or reserved after the effective date shall remain in place and will be heard in Department 16C.

Hon. Christopher E. Krueger Department 16C 916-874-7848

Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff Kelly Roberts’(“Plaintiff”) motion to compel Defendant Tyler Dahl (“Dahl”) to testify at deposition and asking the Court to overrule objections based on attorney-client privilege is ruled upon as follows.

Plaintiff is admonished for failing to comply with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1110(f)(4), which provides, “Unless they are submitted by a self-represented party, electronic exhibits must include electronic bookmarks with links to the first page of each exhibit and with bookmark titles that identify the exhibit number or letter and briefly describe the exhibit.” Failure to comply with these requirements in the future may result in papers not being considered, matters being continued so that papers may be submitted in the proper format, and/or the imposition of sanctions.

Overview

This is an action for slander of title arising out of Dahl’s representation of his client and co-

34-2022-00319058-CU-MC-GDS: Kelley Roberts vs. Rehana Harborth 05/14/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other Motion to Compel Further Testimony and Overrule Objections in Department 16C

defendant Rehana Harborth (“Rehana”) regarding the property of decedent Jerry B. DaValle (“Decedent”), who died on December 2, 2020. On November 9, 2020, prior to his death, Decedent settled the revocable “Jerry B. DaValle 2020 Trust” (“DaValle Trust”), assigning all of his real and personal property to himself as Trustee and naming Plaintiff, his daughter, as Successor Trustee. Also on November 9, 2020, Decedent executed a pour-over will, which left any remainder of his estate to the Trustee of the DaValle Trust and revoked all prior wills. Decedent made a deed transferring title to his real property at 1509 Greenhills Road in Sacramento (“Property”) to himself as Trustee of the DaValle Trust.

On August 30, 2020, prior to the creation of the DaValle Trust, Decedent allegedly settled a separate trust entitled the “Jerry B. DaValle Revocable Trust,” naming Decedent as Trustee and Rehana as Successor Trustee. Rehana’s daughter, co-defendant Keri Harborth (“Keri”), signed the document as a witness.

On May 3, 2021, following Decedent’s death, Rehana filed an Affidavit – Death of Trustee (“Affidavit”) with the Sacramento County Clerk/Recorder, identifying herself as sole Successor Trustee of the Jerry B. DaValle Revocable Trust and naming herself titleholder of Property as Successor Trustee of the Jerry B. DaValle Revocable Trust. Dahl’s law office is the entity identified in the Affidavit as the entity requesting the recordation of the Affidavit.

Plaintiff filed a petition under Probate Code section 850 to confirm ownership of the Property (“Probate Action”). A trial was held in that matter on August 7, 2023, and on August 10, 2023, the Court entered judgment in Plaintiff’s favor, declaring as valid the DaValle Trust, declaring Plaintiff as the owner of the Property as Successor Trustee of the DaValle Trust, and declaring as void the Affidavit and any prior trust or will of Decedent (“Judgment”).

Plaintiff brought this action against Dahl for slander of title—in addition to actions for financial abuse of an elder, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and imposition of constructive trust against Rehana and other defendants.

Plaintiff has taken Dahl’s deposition in which Dahl objected to certain questions and did not produce a document based on the attorney-client privilege.

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 2025.460 and 2025.480[1], Plaintiff requests that the Court:

1. Find that Plaintiff has made a prima facie case that Defendant Rehana Harborth was in the process of executing a crime and a fraud when she retained Defendant Tyler Q. Dahl in order to record the Affidavit of Death (Exh. 8) in 2021;

2. Find that Plaintiff has made a prima facie case that a crime was committed

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2022-00319058-CU-MC-GDS: Kelley Roberts vs. Rehana Harborth 05/14/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other Motion to Compel Further Testimony and Overrule Objections in Department 16C

when the Affidavit of Death (Exh. 8) was recorded;

3. Make an Order that objections based on attorney-client privilege in discovery directed in this action to Defendant Tyler Q. Dahl, employees and agents of Tyler Q. Dahl, and Defendant Rehana Harborth are overruled based on the provisions of Evidence Code section 956;

4. Include in its Order that Tyler Q. Dahl appear and testify at a second session of his oral deposition, and that he answer the questions marked in Exhibit 3 (pages 1-4, 33-36 and 37-40) after he was instructed not to answer based on a claim of attorney-client privilege, as well as other questions concerning his dealings with Defendant Rehana Harborth posed by Plaintiff’s counsel to which he might otherwise impose an objection on those grounds;

5. Require in its Order that Tyler Q. Dahl produce, at the second session of his oral deposition, the document he refused to produce at the first session of his deposition, which his counsel identified in a privilege log as a “Confidential Probate & Trust Administration Data Sheet” (Exh 4 Sommer LTR 12.3.25).

6. Such further and additional Orders as the court deems appropriate in the circumstances.

(Motion, 2:9-26.)

The Crime-Fraud Exception

Evidence Code section 956(a) states that “[t]here is no privilege under this article if the services of the lawyer were sought or obtained to enable or aid anyone to commit or plan to commit a crime or a fraud.”

As explained in Geilim v. Superior Court (1991) 234 Cal.App.3d 166,

This is a very limited exception to the privilege. As stated by the California Supreme Court recently, “Cases decided since the adoption of the Evidence Code recognize the limited nature of the exception to the attorney-client privilege created by Evidence Code section 956: ‘This exception is invoked only when a client seeks or obtains legal assistance” to enable or aid “one to commit a crime or fraud. The quoted language clearly requires an intention on the part of the client to abuse the attorney-client relationship, ...’ (Glade v. Superior Court (1978) 76 Cal.App.3d 738, 746 [143 Cal.Rptr. 119]. See also, BP Alaska Exploration Inc. v. Superior Court (1988) 199 Cal.App.3d 1240, 1249 [245 Cal.Rptr. 682]:

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2022-00319058-CU-MC-GDS: Kelley Roberts vs. Rehana Harborth 05/14/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other Motion to Compel Further Testimony and Overrule Objections in Department 16C

‘Evidence Code section 956 codifies the common law rule that the privilege protecting confidential attorney-client communications is lost if the client seeks legal assistance to plan or perpetuate a crime or fraud.’)” (People v. Clark (1990) 50 Cal.3d 583, 622-623 [268 Cal.Rptr. 399, 789 P.2d 127] [Admission of privileged communication was harmless error.].) However, the proponent of the exception bears the burden of proof of the existence of crime or fraud. (See Cooke v. Superior Court (1978) 83 Cal.App.3d 582 [147 Cal.Rptr. 915].)

(Id., at 166.)

Evidence must be presented and must be sufficient to make a prima facie showing of some crime or fraud necessary to establish the attorney-client privilege is inapplicable. (Travelers Insur. Companies v. Superior Court (1983) 143 Cal.App.3d 436, 447.) Where a party’s argument is premised only on allegations of fraud or crime without evidence of such fraud or crime, discovery of attorney-client communications is not permitted. (Ibid.)

Plaintiff argues that the recording of the Affidavit was a crime pursuant to Penal Code section 115, which provides that “(a) [e]very person who knowingly procures or offers any false or forged instrument to be filed, registered, or recorded in any public office within this state, which instrument, if genuine, might be filed, registered, or recorded under any law of this state or of the United States, is guilty of a felony.” Plaintiff insists that Dahl aided and abetted Rehana to commit this crime.

As evidence, Plaintiff presents Rehana’s and Keri’s deposition testimony wherein both testified that they were with Decedent the morning of August 30, 2020 when he signed the now-void trust. (Declaration of Thomas Walker (“Walker Decl.”), Exs. 5-6.) Plaintiff explains that the signing could not have possibly happened on that date and period of time because Decedent’s medical records show that he was in the emergency room during that time. (Id., at Ex. 7.) Plaintiff also presents the expert opinion of Nanette Barto, QFDE.

Ms. Barto conducted handwriting comparisons for Decedent and Rehana. Ms. Barto opines that “[t]he Q1 [now-void Trust] and Q2 [voided Advanced Healthcare Directive] documents were not authored by the same hand as the known handwriting of Jerry DaValle, and he has been excluded as the author. The Q1 and Q2 documents show a strong probability of being authored by the same hand as the known handwriting of Rehana Harborth, and she cannot be excluded as the author.” (Declaration of Nanette Barto, QFDE, p. 3.)

Thus, according to Plaintiff, “the inescapable conclusion is that the alleged signing of the trust did not in fact occur, because it is not possible that Jerry Da Valle was in two places at the same time, and documentary evidence provided under oath clearly shows that he was in the hospital.” (Motion, 7:18-21.) With regards to the Affidavit, Plaintiff contends that “the affidavit produced by Defendant Dahl and signed by Rehana Harborth was fraudulent, since it, by sleight of word, attempts to change title from the legitimate trust created by Jerry Da Valle using the services of competent counsel to the forged trust offered by

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2022-00319058-CU-MC-GDS: Kelley Roberts vs. Rehana Harborth 05/14/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other Motion to Compel Further Testimony and Overrule Objections in Department 16C

Defendant Harborth.” (Motion, 6:5-9.)

Dahl argues in opposition that Plaintiff fails to make a prima facie showing for the crime-fraud exception. He claims that “the facts herein show only a client, Defendant Harborth, seeking legal representation about a potential legal issue. They do not establish that the advice of Defendant Dahl was ‘sought or obtained’ to enable or to aid Defendant Harborth to commit or plan to commit a crime or fraud.” (Opposition, 5:5-8.) He notes that although Plaintiff argued fraud in the Probate Action, the “issue was not necessarily determined by the judgment,” and does not create a prima facie case of a crime or fraud. (Opposition, 5:12-13.)

Dahl adds that Plaintiff’s evidence is highly circumstantial. He suggests that “Plaintiff’s reference to hospital records leaves ample room for the possibility that there was a misunderstanding by the deponent, and that the trust was signed at a different time.” (Opposition, 6:3-5.) Dahl contends that the Court should not consider Ms. Barto’s opinion because he “has not had the occasion to have such document independently examined by an expert, or to explore the bases of the opinion of Plaintiff's expert in deposition, the qualifications and prior work of such expert, or other highlypertinent information relevant to establish the credibility thereof.

More importantly, the court has not had the occasion to review the persuasiveness of such evidence and the arguments in favor and opposed thereto, and to issue an order resulting from such examination.” (Opposition, 6:16- 21.)

Dahl further asserts that Plaintiff’s reliance on Penal Code section 115 is misplaced because it is a criminal statute and Plaintiff has not shown a basis of a private right of action. As a result, Dahl insists that “[w]hether either Defendant met the actus reus and mens rea requirement to be found guilty of a violation of Penal Code section 115 is therefore not properly asserted by Plaintiff in this matter. Indeed, even if it were, Plaintiff presents no evidence that Defendant Harborth sought legal advice from Defendant Dahl with the subjective intent to commit a crime.” (Opposition, 7:5-8.)

Analysis

Section 2025.460(e) states:

If a deponent fails to answer any question or to produce any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing under the deponent’s control that is specified in the deposition notice or a deposition subpoena, the party seeking that answer or production may adjourn the deposition or complete the examination on other matters without waiving the right at a later time to move for an order compelling that answer or production under Section 2025.480.

Section 2025.480(a) provides that:

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2022-00319058-CU-MC-GDS: Kelley Roberts vs. Rehana Harborth 05/14/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other Motion to Compel Further Testimony and Overrule Objections in Department 16C

(a) If a deponent fails to answer any question or to produce any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing under the deponent’s control that is specified in the deposition notice or a deposition subpoena, the party seeking discovery may move the court for an order compelling that answer or production.

Deposition Testimony

Plaintiff moves to compel Dahl’s further answers to previously-asked deposition questions, and to prospectively order that the crime-fraud exception applies to the attorney-client privilege such that Dahl be required to answer “questions to which he might otherwise pose that objection.” (Motion, 1:25-26.)

California Rules of Court Rule 3.1345(a) requires that a motion to compel answers at a deposition include a separate statement. Plaintiff did not file the required separate statement.

With respect to Plaintiff’s request that the Court overrule the attorney-client privilege for “questions to which [Plaintiff] might otherwise pose that objection,” Sections 2025.460 and 2025.480 apply when a deponent fails to answer a question. Plaintiff provides no legal authority that these sections apply when the moving party seeks a prospective order overruling an objection even though no question has been posed.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to compel Dahl to answer deposition questions is DENIED.

Production of “Confidential Probate & Trust Administration Data Sheet”

Plaintiff also moves to compel a Confidential Probate & Trust Administration Data Sheet that was purportedly identified on Dahl’s privilege log as protected by the attorney-client privilege.

Having reviewed the parties’ argument and Plaintiff’s evidence, the Court finds that Plaintiff has made a prima facie showing of a crime or fraud, and that Rehana sought or obtained Dahl’s legal assistance to enable or aid her to commit a crime or fraud.

While Dahl suggests that Rehana’s and Keri’s deposition testimony that Decedent signed the now-void trust on August 30, 2020 may have been a misunderstanding, the document itself confirms that it is dated August 30, 2020 – the day Decedent was in the hospital. (Walker Decl., Ex. 1.) Dahl complains that he has not had opportunity to have the documents and signatures evaluated, or to explore and respond to Ms. Barto’s opinion. Yet, Plaintiff filed this motion on December 30, 2025 and Dahl’s opposition was not due until May 1, 2026. This left Dahl with approximately four months to engage an expert to evaluate the documents and Ms. Barto’s opinion, but Dahl did not do so. Dahl also provides no legal authority suggesting that Plaintiff

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2022-00319058-CU-MC-GDS: Kelley Roberts vs. Rehana Harborth 05/14/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other Motion to Compel Further Testimony and Overrule Objections in Department 16C

must assert a private cause of action for Penal Code section 115 in order to for the crime-fraud exception to apply.

The evidence demonstrates that although Decedent purportedly signed the now-void trust on August 30, 2020, he could not have done so because he was in the hospital. The only witnesses to the alleged signing were Rehana and Keri. Ms. Barto’s opinion also supports Plaintiff’s argument that the now-void trust was forged by Rehana. Given this evidence, it follows that Rehana knew that the Decedent did not sign the now-void trust, and that after Decedent’s death she retained Dahl’s services, knowing that the now-void trust was a forgery, in order to obtain title to the Property.

Accordingly, the Court finds that the crime-fraud exception applies to Dahl’s assertion of the attorney-client privilege. Plaintiff’s motion to compel Dahl to produce the Confidential Probate & Trust Administration Data Sheet is GRANTED. Dahl shall produce the document no later than May 28, 2026.

Since the Court has found that the crime-fraud exception applies, Plaintiff also requests that to the extent Dahl refuses to produce documents based on the work-product doctrine at his second deposition, that Dahl “within ten days following the second session of his deposition submit said documents to this court for an in camera review on an ex parte basis, along with an appropriate motion seeking a determination by this court as to whether the documents so submitted are protected from disclosure by the work-product doctrine despite the anticipated finding that the attorney-client communications privilege is inapplicable under the provisions of Evidence Code section 956, and such additional Orders as the court deems proper in the circumstances.” (Motion, 1:28-2:6.)

The request is DENIED. First, the Court has denied Plaintiff’s motion to compel Dahl to answer deposition questions, thus, no second deposition is permitted. Second, Plaintiff provides no legal authority supporting her request.

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

Moving counsel’s notice of motion does not provide notice of the Court’s tentative ruling system, as required by Local Rule 1.06. Moving counsel is directed to contact Dahl’s counsel and advise counsel of Local Rule 1.06 and the Court’s tentative ruling procedure and the manner to request a hearing. If moving counsel is unable to contact Dahl’s counsel prior to hearing, moving counsel is ordered to appear at the hearing.

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:

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2022-00319058-CU-MC-GDS: Kelley Roberts vs. Rehana Harborth 05/14/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other Motion to Compel Further Testimony and Overrule Objections in Department 16C

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 16C Zoom Link is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16030877014 To appear on Zoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID 16030877014. 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/courtreporters/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.

[1] Unless otherwise indicated, all further statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2022-00319058-CU-MC-GDS: Kelley Roberts vs. Rehana Harborth 05/14/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other Motion to Compel Further Testimony and Overrule Objections in Department 16C