WALLACE vs CALIFORNIA STATE LOTTERY

24CV002305: WALLACE vs CALIFORNIA STATE LOTTERY 05/27/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other to Subpoena Records in Department 8C

Tentative Ruling

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that any oral arguments regarding this tentative ruling will be heard at 1:30 p.m. in Department 8C, located at the Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye Courthouse located at 500 G. Street, Sacramento, CA, the Hon. Richard C. Miadich presiding.

Appearance Required.

This matter was continued pursuant to this Department's procedure for self-represented incarcerated parties. The original tentative ruling is re-published below.

The parties may join the Zoom session for hearing on the tentative ruling by audio and/or video through the following link:

https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16039062174

SIP Address:

16039062174@sip.zoomgov.com

(833) 568-8864

ID: 16039062174

***NOTICE: EFFECTIVE APRIL 13, 2026, THIS DEPARTMENT HAS MOVED TO THE TANI G. CANTIL-SAKAUYE COURTHOUSE LOCATED AT 500 G. ST. SACRAMENTO, CA. ALL MOTIONS NOTICED FOR DEPARTMENT 28 WILL BE HEARD IN DEPARTMENT 8C 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****

Plaintiff David N. Wallace’s “motion to subpoena” against Defendant California Lottery (“Defendant”) is ruled upon as follows.

24CV002305: WALLACE vs CALIFORNIA STATE LOTTERY 05/27/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other to Subpoena Records in Department 8C

Plaintiff is incarcerated and self-represented. Plaintiff’s complaint arises out of allegations that he is entitled to Lottery winnings from a ticket his now deceased mother was keeping for him. Plaintiff’s motion states, in relevant part:

Plaintiff request this Court that during the upcoming case management hearing [sic] scheduled November 6, 2025, at 8:30 am, in Department 28, subpoena Ca. Lottery’s database that reveals the ticket in requestion [sic] had certain information needed for Ca Lottery to issue the winnings and, so that fraud or any other scams cannot occur.

(Motion at p. 2.)

It does not appear that Plaintiff is seeking to compel a subpoena or request for production of documents that has previously been served to Defendant, but, rather, it appears that Plaintiff is requesting production of documents by way of his motion.

Defendant opposes the motion.

Defendant first requests that the Court stay Plaintiff’s discovery should “until such time, if any, that the Complaint is properly amended to allege sufficient facts justifying the Defendants’ document response.” This request is not properly before the Court. A request for stay would need to be sought via an affirmative motion. Defendant’s request for a stay of discovery is denied.

Defendant also argues that Plaintiff’s motion should be denied because Plaintiff’s motion is not the proper way to make a request for production of documents and because even if the motion is construed as a request for production of documents, Defendant cannot respond because it lacks the information needed to identify an alleged winning lottery ticket and disposition thereof. Defendant also points out that there was no case management hearing in this action on November 6, 2025, the date and event at which Plaintiff requested that the production take place.

The Court concludes that Plaintiff has not made a proper request for production of documents in compliance with the procedures set out in the Civil Discovery Act (the Act), and that even if the Court construed Plaintiff’s motion as a request for production of documents, it lacks sufficient specificity to enable Defendant to respond. Plaintiff was required to: “designate the documents, tangible things, land or other property, or electronically stored information to be inspected, copied, tested, or sampled either by specifically describing each individual item or by reasonably particularizing each category of item.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.030, subd. (c)(1).) Only after

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV002305: WALLACE vs CALIFORNIA STATE LOTTERY 05/27/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other to Subpoena Records in Department 8C

making such a request, could Plaintiff move for the Court to compel Defendant to respond to such a request.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.

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