VIERRA, et al. vs RINDLE RANCH, et al.

24CV017136: VIERRA, et al. vs RINDLE RANCH, et al. 05/12/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One in Department 16D

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 16D Zoom Link is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16146506749 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

24CV017136: VIERRA, et al. vs RINDLE RANCH, et al. 05/12/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One in Department 16D

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.

TENTATIVE RULING:

*** NOTICE: EFFECTIVE APRIL 13, 2026, THIS DEPARTMENT HAS MOVED TO THE TANI G. CANTIL-SAKAUYE COURTHOUSE LOCATED AT 500 G STREET IN SACRAMENTO, CA. ALL MOTIONS NOTICED FOR DEPARTMENT 53 WILL BE HEARD IN DEPARTMENT 16D OF THE NEW COURTHOUSE. ALL PAPERS FOR THIS DEPARTMENT MUST BE FILED AT THIS NEW LOCATION AND WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED AT THE HALL OF JUSTICE. ALL HEARINGS WILL TAKE PLACE AT THIS NEW LOCATION. PARTIES MAY CONTINUE TO APPEAR REMOTELY IN DEPARTMENT 16D UNLESS SPECIFICALLY ORDERED OTHERWISE. ***

*** The Court finds in its file no proof of service demonstrating moving plaintiffs’ service of the Notice of Disclosure issued on 1/15/2026, despite being directed to serve all other parties with the Notice of Disclosure “forthwith.” Moving plaintiffs are directed to serve the Notice of Disclosure on all other parties forthwith and to file proof of service within five (5) court days. ***

Plaintiffs’ amended notice of motion fails to provide the correct address for this Court’s Dept. 53, now designated as Dept. 16D.

Plaintiffs Wade and Kari Vierra’s motion to compel further responses to their Requests for Production, Set One, and for monetary sanctions is ruled upon as follows.

*** If oral argument is requested, the parties must at the time oral argument is requested notify the clerk and the opposing party of the specific discovery requests that will be addressed at the hearing. The parties are also reminded that pursuant to local rules, only limited oral argument is permitted on law and motion matters. ***

Factual Background

This premises liability action was commenced by plaintiffs Wade and Kari Vierra on 8/28/2024. It is alleged that on 3/26/2024 plaintiff Wade Vierra tripped and fell while walking his dog at an apartment complex located at 6546 Auburn Boulevard in Citrus

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV017136: VIERRA, et al. vs RINDLE RANCH, et al. 05/12/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One in Department 16D

Heights. No trial date has been set.

Plaintiffs now seek to compel further responses to their Requests for Production, Set One, and specifically, Request Nos. 18, 20, 21 and 29. Plaintiffs also request monetary sanctions of over $2,500.

Defendants oppose, generally arguing that plaintiffs’ requests are unreasonably overbroad and that the asserted objections were therefore justified. Among other things, the opposition insists that plaintiff stated in responses to interrogatories the subject incident occurred on a “foreseeable pedestrian pathway near his residence at 6633 Evesham Circle” (Opp., p.5:19-26), which appears to be just one address within the subject apartment complex located at 6546 Auburn Boulevard.

In reply, plaintiffs confirm that each of the four subject requests seek documents going back five (5) years prior to the subject incident but adds that defendants have identified no agreement whereby they were permitted to limit their responses to just one (1) year prior to the subject incident. Plaintiffs further assert that defendants have provided no justification for also limiting their responses to “the street or area immediately in front of 6633 Evesham Circle.” In short, the reply contends that neither limitation unilaterally imposed by defendants “is supported by the Discovery Act, the facts, or the third-party subpoena records now before the Court.”

Legal Standards for Discovery

“[A]ny party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action or to the determination of any motion made in that action, if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” (Code Civ. Proc. §2017.010.) “In the absence of contrary court order, a civil litigant’s right to discovery is broad...[and] statutes governing discovery ‘must be construed liberally in favor of disclosure unless the request is clearly improper by virtue of well-established causes for denial.’ [Citation.]” (Williams v.

Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 541; see also Greyhound Corp. v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 355, 378 [“disclosure is a matter of right unless statutory or public policy considerations clearly prohibit it”].) Nevertheless, while civil discovery is broad, it is not limitless. (Board of Registered Nursing v. Superior Court (2021) 59 Cal.App.5th 1011, 1039 [citing Calcor Space Facility v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 223].) It cannot be based on pure speculation. (Digital Music News LLC v.

Superior Court (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 216, 227.)

The party seeking to resist discovery based upon objections has the burden to justify its objections. (Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255 [citing Coy

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV017136: VIERRA, et al. vs RINDLE RANCH, et al. 05/12/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One in Department 16D

v. Superior Court (1962) 58 Cal.2d 220-221].) Indeed, in the discovery context, information is relevant “if it might reasonably assist a party in evaluating its case, preparing for trial, or facilitating a settlement. [Citations omitted.] Admissibility is not the test and information, unless privileged, is discoverable if it might reasonably lead to admissible evidence.” (Lipton v. Superior Court (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1599, 1611-1612 [emphasis in original].) “Any doubts regarding relevance are generally resolved in favor of allowing the discovery.” (Mercury Interactive Corp. v. Klein (2007) 158 Cal.App.4th 60, 98.)

“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).) The party asserting objections to discovery generally bears the burden of justifying and supporting the objections. (See, e.g., Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 549-550.)

To obtain further responses to requests for production, the initial burden is on the moving party to show both relevance to the subject matter and specific facts justifying discovery. (Glenfed Develop. Corp. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1117; Code Civ. Proc. §2031.310(b)(1) [requiring a showing of “good cause” for production of documents].) Once good cause is established by the moving party, the burden then shifts to the responding party to justify any objections made to document disclosure. (Hartbrodt v. Burke (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 168, 172-174.)

Discussion

Based on the standards cited above, it is clear that California discovery statutes are to be broadly construed so as to permit the litigants to seek and obtain not only relevant evidence but also such non-privileged information and documentation which is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. However, it is also true that the scope of permissible discovery in civil cases in not unlimited and a court may establish certain limits based on the facts and circumstances at issue.

Having carefully considered the arguments offered in support of and opposition to this motion, this Court finds it is appropriate at this time to limit the scope of the four (4) Requests for Production at issue (i.e., Request Nos. 18, 20, 21 and 29) to the areas on and around the property designated as 6633 Evesham Circle, given that plaintiff Vierra himself has indicated this is the area where the subject incident occurred. Neither the moving nor the reply papers persuade this Court that a broader scope for the four

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV017136: VIERRA, et al. vs RINDLE RANCH, et al. 05/12/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One in Department 16D

requests at issue here is appropriate or warranted under the circumstances. As a threshold matter, the Court finds that plaintiffs have failed to “set forth specific facts showing good cause” which justifies the broader geographic scope sought by these requests, as required by Code of Civil Procedure §2031.310(b)(1). Nor does the Court see how responses specifically pertaining to the various areas which were not identified by plaintiff Vierra would lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, especially considering the prohibitions on admissibility set forth by Evidence Code §1104 and §787. While the Court finds that plaintiffs have not satisfied their initial burden such that addressing defendants’ objections is not necessary, the same analysis would warrant the sustaining of the relevant objections.

The Court also finds that plaintiffs’ requests going back five (5) years prior to the subject incident is similarly overbroad and unwarranted and thus, plaintiffs have again not satisfied their initial burden as to this entire five year period. However, the Court also finds that defendants’ own attempt to limit the subject requests to just one (1) year prior to the subject incident is unreasonably narrow and unjustified under the circumstances. This Court holds that a two-year period prior to the subject incident is more reasonable in scope insofar as it not only affords plaintiffs their right to broad discovery of matters reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence but also prevents them from imposing any unjustified burden and/or expense on defendants.

The Court finds that plaintiffs have satisfied their initial burden in this limited regard and that defendants have not satisfied their own burden to justify the objections as to this limited scope of time.

Disposition

For the reasons explained above, plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to Request for Production, Set One, Nos. 18, 20, 21 and 29 is GRANTED subject to the limitations identified above (i.e., those areas on and around the property designated as 6633 Evesham Circle and no more than two years prior to the subject incident).

Subject to the above-cited limitations, defendants shall provide verified further responses, without additional objections, to plaintiffs’ Request No. 18, 20, 21 and 29, along with a code-compliant privilege log identifying each and every document withheld from production on account of privilege or other valid protection from discovery, no later than 6/2/2026 (unless plaintiffs agree to a later date memorialized in writing).

This ruling is without prejudice to plaintiffs’ right to seek, upon a sufficient showing, discovery of information and/or documents beyond the geographic and/or temporal limitations identified above.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV017136: VIERRA, et al. vs RINDLE RANCH, et al. 05/12/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One in Department 16D

Plaintiffs’ request for monetary sanctions is denied since the opposition was substantially justified under the circumstances here.

Moving parties to provide notice of this ruling and file proof of service of same within five (5) court days.

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