BATES vs CALIFORNIA STATE DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, et al.

23CV000245: BATES vs CALIFORNIA STATE DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, et al. 08/25/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Compliance with Deposition Subpoena (CalHR) in Department 16C

Tentative Ruling

Pro per Plaintiff Thomas M. Bates’ (“Plaintiff”) motion to compel dismissed defendant California Department of Human Resources’ (“CalHR”) compliance with deposition subpoena is DENIED.

A deposition subpoena may be enforced through a motion to compel compliance, brought pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1987.1. Generally, a showing of “good cause” is required on motions to compel document discovery from a party. (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2025.450(b)(1), 2031.310(b)(1).) “Good cause” has been construed liberally. (Associated Brewers Distributing Co. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1967) 65 Cal.2d 583, 587 [justification for discovery found where specific facts show the documents are necessary for effective trial preparation or to prevent surprise at trial].)

Notably, in the context of nonparty discovery, the pertinent statutes do not expressly specify a “good cause” requirement on a motion to compel a nonparty to comply with a deposition subpoena for document production. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1987.1, 2025.480.) An appellate court has held that if there is a “good cause” showing required to compel production of party documents, such a requirement also applies to nonparty production. (Calcor Space Facility v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 223-224.)

CalHR argues in opposition, and Plaintiff concedes in reply, that he did not show good cause in his moving papers. In reply, Plaintiff attempts to provide good cause for his narrowed request for documents. Plaintiff’s belated attempt does not cure the defect because he was required to provide good cause in his moving papers. (See e.g. Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2025.450(b)(1), 2031.310(b)(1).)

Accordingly, the motion is DENIED.

CalHR indicates that in response to Plaintiff’s Public Records Act request, CalHR inadvertently disclosed and produced a February 14, 2025 legal memorandum and February 15, 2025 cover memo (“Inadvertently Disclosed Legal Memo”). (Declaration of Sandy Blair (“Blair Decl.”), ¶ 4.) CalHR has demanded that Plaintiff destroy the Inadvertently Disclosed Legal Memo and refrain from disclosing or sharing it with anyone else. (Blair Decl., ¶ 7; Declaration of Nicole Skow, ¶ 6, Ex. B.) CalHR requests that the Court order Plaintiff to destroy any copies of the Inadvertently Disclosed Legal Memo in his possession and to refrain from sharing it with others.

In reply, Plaintiff indicates that he “does not seek production of that document, does not rely on it, has not reviewed it, and has sequestered it.” (Reply, 7:20-21.) Plaintiff also states that, “[t]he opposition describes the document it seeks returned as a February 14, 2025 memorandum with a February 15, 2025 cover memo. Plaintiff does not know whether these are the same document.

23CV000245: BATES vs CALIFORNIA STATE DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, et al. 08/25/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Compliance with Deposition Subpoena (CalHR) in Department 16C

He asks only that any order identify the document by date, so that its scope is certain.” (Reply, 7:25-8:2.)

Plaintiff is ordered to destroy any and all copies of the “IC Memo with Legal Opinion 2.2024 reviewed” that was inadvertently produced on August 3, 2026. By no later than August 28, 2026, Plaintiff shall serve a declaration averring that he has destroyed any and all copies of the “IC Memo with Legal Opinion 2.2024 reviewed.” Plaintiff shall also refrain from sharing it with others.

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

Plaintiff’s notice of motion does not provide notice of the Court’s tentative ruling system, as required by Local Rule 1.06. Plaintiff is directed to contact CalHR’s counsel and opposing counsel and advise counsel of Local Rule 1.06 and the Court’s tentative ruling procedure and the manner to request a hearing. If Plaintiff is unable to contact CalHR’s and opposing counsel prior to hearing, Plaintiff 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:

To request limited oral argument, on any matter on this calendar, you must call the Department 16C Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-1475 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 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 160 3087 7014. To appear on Zoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID referenced above. NO COURTCALL APPEARANCES WILL BE

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV000245: BATES vs CALIFORNIA STATE DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, et al. 08/25/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Compliance with Deposition Subpoena (CalHR) in Department 16C

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-services-transcripts. 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 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.