Kelley Roberts vs. Rehana Harborth

34-2022-00319058-CU-MC-GDS: Kelley Roberts vs. Rehana Harborth 08/25/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other to Require Defendant Tyler Q. Dahl to Testify at A Second Deposition and Overruling Objections Based on Attorney/Client Privilege (C.C.P. 2025.610(B)) in Department 16C

Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff Kelley Roberts’ (“Plaintiff”) motion to compel Defendant Tyler Dahl (“Dahl”) to appear at a second deposition and overrule objections based on attorney-client privilege is ruled upon as follows.

This is an action for slander of title arising out of Dahl’s representation of his client and codefendant Rehana Harborth (“Rehana”) regarding the property of decedent Jerry B. Da Valle (“Decedent”), who died on December 2, 2020. On June 18, 2026, the Court granted, in part, and denied, in part, Plaintiff’s motion to compel Dahl’s answers at deposition pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.460(e),[1] and to overrule objections based on attorney-client privilege. In its ruling, the Court found that the crime-fraud exception applied, and ordered Dahl to produce the Confidential Probate & Trust Administration Data Sheet. The Court, however, denied the motion to compel Dahl’s deposition testimony because: (1) Plaintiff did not file a separate statement, and (2) Plaintiff sought a prospective order overruling an objection even though no question had been posed.

Trial is currently scheduled for February 2, 2027.

Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice is granted. In taking judicial notice of these documents, the Court accepts the fact of their existence, not the truth of their contents. (See Professional Engineers v. Dep’t of Transp. (1997) 15 Cal.4th 543, 590; Steed v. Department of Consumer Affairs (2012) 204 Cal.App.4th 112, 120-121.)

Pursuant to Section 2025.610(b),[2] Plaintiff now moves the Court to order Dahl “to appear a second time for his deposition and overruling all objections based on attorney-client privilege between a Defendant herein and attorney Dahl and/or his staff.” (Motion, 1:25-26.) Plaintiff asks that Dahl be ordered to appear for his second deposition and answer questions identified in the separate statement, “as well as reasonable follow-up questions concerning his dealings with Defendant Rehana Harborth posed by Plaintiff’s counsel to which he might otherwise impose an objection on those grounds.” (Proposed Order, ¶ 4.)

The questions identified in the separate statement are:

1. Did Ms. Harborth tell you that she had been Mr. Da Valle's caregiver?

2. Did Rehana Harborth tell you who Dean Barthus was?

3. In May of 2021, did Ms. Harborth tell you who Dean Barthus was?

Section 2025.610(a) provides, “Once any party has taken the deposition of any natural person, including that of a party to the action, neither the party who gave, nor any other party who has

34-2022-00319058-CU-MC-GDS: Kelley Roberts vs. Rehana Harborth 08/25/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other to Require Defendant Tyler Q. Dahl to Testify at A Second Deposition and Overruling Objections Based on Attorney/Client Privilege (C.C.P. 2025.610(B)) in Department 16C

been served with a deposition notice pursuant to Section 2025.240 may take a subsequent deposition of that deponent.” Nevertheless, Section 2025.610(b) further provides that, “for good cause shown, the court may grant leave to take a subsequent deposition.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.610(b).) Good cause exists when a litigant needs to “inquire into matters relating to a new factual issue.” (Carlson v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 431, 439.)

Plaintiff argues that:

[d]espite the factual record, at his deposition attorney Dahl’s counsel instructed him not to respond to certain questions on grounds of attorney-client privilege. In its Order entered June 18, 2026, this court ruled that the crime/fraud exception to the attorney-client privilege applied to Mr. Dahl’s representation of Defendant Rehana Harborth, because of the facts presented by Plaintiff.

Under the circumstances, good cause exists to require Defendant Dahl to appear and testify at a second deposition, and to order that objections based on attorney- client privilege between attorney Dahl and his staff do not apply in this case.

(Motion, 3:10-17.)

Dahl opposes. He argues that Plaintiff fails to show good cause and that the motion is essentially a re-styled and untimely motion to compel Dahl to answer further deposition questions under Section 2025.480(b). Dahl explains that Plaintiff’s motion to compel his answers at deposition was denied for reasons entirely within her control in that she did not file a separate statement. As such, “Plaintiff's strategic missteps are of her own making and are not ‘good cause’ within the meaning of the statute.” (Opposition, 9:12-14.)

The Court agrees with Dahl. Here, while Plaintiff suggests that the reason for the subsequent deposition is that the Court found that the crime-fraud exception applied, the actual reason is that the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion to compel Dahl’s answers at deposition due to the failure to file a separate statement. As can be seen by the inclusion of a separate statement (which is required for a motion to compel answers to deposition, not a motion for a subsequent deposition) and Plaintiff’s proposed order, this motion is one to compel Dahl’s further answers to the questions set forth in the separate statement.

A motion to compel further answers must be filed within sixty days after completion of the record. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.480(b).) In the case at bar, Dahl’s deposition was completed on November 10, 2025. Plaintiff filed the instant motion on June 22, 2026 – 224 days later. The Court finds that Plaintiff fails to show good cause to take a subsequent deposition.

Moreover, with respect to Plaintiff’s request that the Court overrule “all objections based on

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2022-00319058-CU-MC-GDS: Kelley Roberts vs. Rehana Harborth 08/25/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other to Require Defendant Tyler Q. Dahl to Testify at A Second Deposition and Overruling Objections Based on Attorney/Client Privilege (C.C.P. 2025.610(B)) in Department 16C

attorney-client privilege between a Defendant herein and attorney Dahl and/or his staff,” Plaintiff provides no legal authority for the Court to prospectively overrule an objection even though no question has been posed.

Accordingly, the motion is DENIED.

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

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 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

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2022-00319058-CU-MC-GDS: Kelley Roberts vs. Rehana Harborth 08/25/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other to Require Defendant Tyler Q. Dahl to Testify at A Second Deposition and Overruling Objections Based on Attorney/Client Privilege (C.C.P. 2025.610(B)) in Department 16C

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.

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