KUZMICZ vs CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION

24CV007860: KUZMICZ vs CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION 08/12/2025 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses to plf 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

24CV007860: KUZMICZ vs CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION 08/12/2025 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses to plf 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 forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

TENTATIVE RULING: Plaintiff Joshua Kuzmicz’s motion to compel further responses to requests for production of documents is ruled upon as set forth below.

In this whistleblower retaliation action, Plaintiff seeks to compel Defendant the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s further responses to his request for production. At issue on the instant motion are Defendant’s responses to Plaintiff’s requests nos. 17-20, 40, 49, 51, 53, 55, 72, 74, and 75. According to Plaintiff, Defendant’s responses are deficient and contain improper objections.

“On receipt of a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, the demanding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the demanding party deems that any of the following apply: [¶] (1) A statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete. [¶] (2) A representation of inability to comply is inadequate. [¶] (3) An objection in the response is without merit or too general.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.310(a).)

Defendant’s opposition does not address the content of its responses and instead argues that the motion is moot because it has now produced all requested documents and served verified amended responses on July 28, 2025. However, service of responses after the motion was filed and prior to the hearing does not moot the motion. A motion is “made” when it is filed and served. (CCP § 1005.5.) Plaintiff is entitled to an order even if responses were served after the motion. The content of any response served after the motion was filed is not before the Court.

It appears from Plaintiff’s reply that Plaintiff is no longer seeking to compel further responses to requests nos. 17-20, 40, or 75 as the reply concludes with a request that the Court order further responses to nos. 49, 51, 53, 55, 72 and 74 only.

As a result, Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendant to provide further responses to Plaintiff’s request for production (set one) is granted. No later than July 15, 2025, Defendant shall serve further verified responses to Plaintiff’s request for production nos. 49, 51, 53, 55, 72, and 74, as specifically requested in the moving papers. To the extent that the responses served on July 28, 2025, comply with this ruling, they need not be reserved.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV007860: KUZMICZ vs CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION 08/12/2025 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses to plf Request for Production of Documents in Department 53

To the extent Plaintiff seeks to compel Defendant to produce documents through this same motion, the Court finds that the motion is premature as Defendant has not yet provided a complete statement in its responses that responsive documents exist and will be produced. Given that the Court has now ruled upon Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses, Defendant must first provide supplemental verified responses in light of the Court’s rulings. A motion to compel production is only proper where a party has agreed to produce documents but has failed to do so in compliance with its statement. (CCP § 2031.320(a).) Nonetheless, the Court expects that the parties will cooperate to coordinate production of responsive documents upon Defendant’s service of its further responses in light of this Court’s order.

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is denied as the Court finds that Defendant’s opposition was substantially justified. Alternatively, the Court finds sanctions would be unjust under the circumstances.

The notice of motion does not provide notice of the Court’s tentative ruling system as required by Local Rule 1.06(D). Plaintiff’s counsel is ordered to notify Defendant’s counsel immediately of the tentative ruling system and to be available at the hearing in person, via Zoom or by telephone, in the event Defendant’s counsel appears without following the procedures set forth in Local Rule 1.06(B).

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