DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
34-2022-00326202-CU-BC-GDS·sacramento·Civil·Breach of Contract
Hearing 6 months agoTo be determined at hearing

Martin Tejeda vs. Keith Seibert

Motion to Compel Production of Documents at Trial to Miguel Ruiz-Gomez; Motion to Compel Production of Documents at Trial to Keith Seibert; Motion to Compel Production of Documents at Trial to Michael A. Sastre; Motion for Preliminary Injunction

Hearing date
Mar 13, 2026
Department
35
Judge
Prevailing
N/A

Motion type

Browse all Motion to Compel Discovery rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffMartin Tejeda
DefendantKeith Seibert

Ruling

34-2022-00326202-CU-BC-GDS: Martin Tejeda vs. Keith Seibert 03/13/2026 Conference Pre-trial/pre-trial motions in Department 35

Tentative Ruling

The following comprises the Court’s Tentative Ruling on the following pretrial motions, which are scheduled for hearing at 9:00 a.m. on March 13, 2026, in Department 35:

1) Motion to Compel Production of Documents at Trial to Miguel Ruiz-Gomez

2) Motion to Compel Production of Documents at Trial to Keith Seibert

3) Motion to Compel Production of Documents at Trial to Michael A. Sastre

4) Motion for Preliminary Injunction

APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

The Court notes that the notices for these pretrial motions reference Local Rule 1.05 – the tentative ruling procedure for the Presiding Judge’s law and motion calendar. That rule is inapplicable to these motions as they are pretrial motions scheduled for hearing before the assigned trial judge.

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc., §1019.5; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1312.)

NOTICE:

Parties may appear at the pretrial conference 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.

The Department 35 Zoom Link is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept35 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 16020429959. 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 the 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

34-2022-00326202-CU-BC-GDS: Martin Tejeda vs. Keith Seibert 03/13/2026 Conference Pre-trial/pre-trial motions in Department 35

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 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.

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…
Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Source

Share