Desiree McFarland vs. Winco Foods LLC

34-2020-00278403-CU-PO-GDS: Desiree McFarland vs. Winco Foods LLC 05/28/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Attendance at Depositions and Production of Documents 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

34-2020-00278403-CU-PO-GDS: Desiree McFarland vs. Winco Foods LLC 05/28/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Attendance at Depositions and Production of Documents 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. 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. ***

TENTATIVE RULING: Plaintiff Desiree McFarland’s unopposed motion to compel the deposition of non-party Eric Robinson is denied.

Plaintiff moves to compel Eric Robinson to attend a second deposition. Plaintiff contends that Mr. Robinson’s January 5, 2026 deposition was not completed and that Mr. Robinson agreed to attend a second deposition. Plaintiff indicates that Mr. Robinson has now stated that he cannot attend a second deposition due to medical reasons.

The instant motion was filed on May 4, 2026. At the time the motion was filed, the trial remained scheduled for May 18, 2026. It was not until May 18, 2026, the day of trial assignment, that the Presiding Judge continued the trial to October 13, 2026 pursuant to the parties’ oral stipulation. (May 18, 2026 Minute Order.) The Presiding Judge’s order did not mention or otherwise indicate that discovery would be reopened as a result of the continuance. “Except as provided in Section 2024.050, a continuance or postponement of the trial date does not operate to reopen discovery proceedings.” (CCP § 2024.020.)

Without a specific order stating otherwise, discovery remains closed. Further, no party has filed (much less have granted) any noticed motion to reopen discovery under CCP § 2024.050. Indeed, on May 6, 2026, this Court specifically advised Plaintiff of these issues in its order denying Plaintiff’s ex parte application. Thus, on this ground alone, the Court cannot entertain the instant discovery motion.

As the Court of Appeal has recognized, “[t]hus, if a party properly notices a discovery motion to be heard on or before the discovery motion cutoff date, that party has a right

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2020-00278403-CU-PO-GDS: Desiree McFarland vs. Winco Foods LLC 05/28/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Attendance at Depositions and Production of Documents in Department 16D

to have the motion heard. By negative implication, a party who notices a discovery motion to be heard after the discovery motion cutoff date does not have a right to have the motion heard.” (Pelton-Shepherd Industries, Inc. v. Delta Packaging Products, Inc. (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1568, 1586 [emphasis added].) Here, while Plaintiff filed the motion on May 4, 2026, Plaintiff noticed the motion to be heard after the trial was set to commence and after discovery closed. Notably, the availability of hearing dates in this Department has no bearing on this issue as even if every date were available, Plaintiff’s motion filed on May 4, 2026 could not be heard on any date that would have been “on or before the 15h day, before the date initially set for the trial of the action.” (CCP § 2024.020(a).)

It is an abuse of discretion to consider a motion to compel after the discovery cut-off when there has been no motion to reopen. (Pelton-Shepherd Industries, Inc., supra, 165 Cal.App.4th at 1586.)

The motion is denied without prejudice to Plaintiff seeking leave to reopen discovery.

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is denied as the motion was denied.

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 non-party Eric Robinson and 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 either appear 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 other notice is required.