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

24CV017136: VIERRA, et al. vs RINDLE RANCH, et al. 06/25/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Defendant's Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set Two 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 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

24CV017136: VIERRA, et al. vs RINDLE RANCH, et al. 06/25/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Defendant's Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set Two 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.

****NOTICE: EFFECTIVE APRIL 13, 2026, THIS DEPARTMENT HAS MOVED TO THE TANI G. CANTIL-SAKAUYE COURTHOUSE LOCATED AT 500 G. ST. SACRAMENTO, CA. MOTIONS NOTICED FOR DEPARTMENT 53 WILL BE HEARD IN DEPARTMENT 16D OF THE NEW COURTHOUSE. PARTIES MAY CONTINUE TO APPEAR REMOTELY IN DEPARTMENT 16D UNLESS SPECIFICALLY ORDERED OTHERWISE.*****

TENTATIVE RULING: Plaintiffs Wade and Kari Vierra’s motion to compel Defendants 29th Street Management IV, LLC and 29SC Arcade LP’s further responses to request for production (set two) is continued on the Court’s own motion to August 27, 2026 at 1:30 p.m. in this department.

At issue on this motion are Defendants’ responses to Plaintiffs’ request for production (set two). As set forth in Plaintiffs’ counsel’s declaration in support of the motion, “[t]he problems in Defendant’s Set Two responses mirror issues that arose earlier in this case with Defendant’s responses to Requests for Production, Set One which led to a prior motion to compel after extended meet-and-confer efforts.” (Nolan Decl. ¶ 17.) “Additionally, Plaintiffs filed a motion to compel further responses to Special Interrogatories, Set Two, on December 11, 2025, addressing substantially the same systematic deficiencies (unilateral temporal and geographic limitations, ‘none’ responses contradicted by third-party records, and failure to conduct reasonable inquiry).” (Id. ¶ 18.)

At the time this motion was filed, Plaintiffs’ motion to compel with respect to their requests for production (set one) was pending. However, on May 13, 2026, this Court issued its ruling as to that motion and resolved the issues regarding the temporal and geographic locations as they related to the requests at issue as propounded. Specifically, the Court ordered Defendants to serve further responses to the requests for production (set one) limited to the areas on and around the property designated as 6633 Evesham Circle and no more than two years prior to the subject incident. (May 13, 2026 Minute Order) After the hearing, the Court indicated that its ruling was without prejudice to Plaintiff propounding more narrowly tailored requests in the future. (Ibid.)

Plaintiff’s present motion was filed on January 14, 2026, well before the hearing and the Court’s ruling of May 13, 2026. Given that the Court’s May 13, 2026 order on Plaintiffs’ motion to compel Defendants’ further responses to requests for production (set one)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV017136: VIERRA, et al. vs RINDLE RANCH, et al. 06/25/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Defendant's Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set Two in Department 16D

resolved what appears to be the main issues involved in the present motion related to Defendants’ responses to requests for production (set two), the Court finds that additional meet-and-confer efforts are necessary and have the possibility to eliminate, or at a minimum, narrow the issues regarding the instant discovery dispute. Indeed, a preliminary review of Defendants’ opposition indicates that they will be providing further responses in accordance with the Court’s May 13, 2026 Order as least as to some requests for production.

While Plaintiffs’ reply indicates that the May 13, 2026 Order does not resolve every issue on this motion, Plaintiffs’ counsel’s declaration in support of the motion discussed concedes that there is overlap. The Court will not expend further resources on the present motion until meet-and-confer efforts are completed. In any event, the Court continued Plaintiffs’ motion to compel Defendants’ further responses to special interrogatories to today’s date based on the parties’ stipulation which expressly represented that the continuance was requested to “allow the parties additional time to meet and confer, and potentially narrow or resolve the pending discovery disputes.” (May 20, 2026 Stipulation and Order).

However, there is no evidence that the parties engaged in any further meet-and-confer efforts after the stipulation was entered.

The Discovery Act “requires that there be a serious effort at negotiation and informal resolution.” (Clement v. Alegre (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 1277, 1294.) The rule is designed to encourage parties to work out their differences and lessen financial expenditures and burdens upon the parties and the court. (Townsend v. Superior Court (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1431, 1435.) “‘[A] reasonable and good faith effort at informal resolution entails something more than bickering with [opposing] counsel.... Rather, the law requires that counsel attempt to talk the matter over, compare their views, consult, and deliberate.’” (Clement, supra. 111 Cal.App.4th at p. 1294, quoting Townsend, supra, 61 Cal.App.4th at p. 1439.)

The parties are hereby ordered to engage in further meet-and-confer efforts. The Court expects the parties to engage in extensive, focused and directed meet-and-confer efforts regarding all of the issues raised in the motion in light of the Court’s May 13, 2026 Order. The parties are directed to commence the meet-and-confer efforts forthwith. No later than August 13, 2026, counsel for the parties shall file a joint declaration (meaning a declaration drafted cooperatively by both counsel) detailing the specific meet-and-confer efforts conducted by the parties, including the dates and lengths of such efforts, and clearly indicating which discovery issues have been resolved, and which issues (if any) remain unresolved, and why. The meet-and-confer efforts shall be conducted in person, by telephone or by video conference as required by CCP § 2016.040.

The parties are reminded that the “very purpose of an order to meet and confer is to

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV017136: VIERRA, et al. vs RINDLE RANCH, et al. 06/25/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Defendant's Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set Two in Department 16D

obtain a negotiated resolution of a discovery dispute without having to expend judicial time to sort out which party is correct and what relief shall be granted. What the court seeks is an agreement by the parties which resolves the dispute.” (Young v. Rosenthal (1989) 212 Cal.App.3d 96, 117.) The Court will decide Plaintiffs’ request for monetary sanctions in part based on the joint declaration.

If the continued hearing date is not convenient, or if the parties believe that they will need additional time to meet and confer, counsel may meet and confer on a later hearing date and inform the clerk of the same no later than 4:00 p.m. on June 24, 2026.

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