Motion for Order Directing Compliance with Subpoena for Deposition of Witness Mornen Haymer
24CV026098: VERHOEVEN, et al. vs WANG, et al. 06/10/2026 Hearing on Motion for Order Directing Compliance with Subpoena for Deposition of Witness Mornen Haymer in Department 8D
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 8D Zoom Link is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16113421868 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 1342 1868. 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.
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
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 Courts 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
24CV026098: VERHOEVEN, et al. vs WANG, et al. 06/10/2026 Hearing on Motion for Order Directing Compliance with Subpoena for Deposition of Witness Mornen Haymer in Department 8D
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 Reporters 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 25 WILL BE HEARD IN DEPARTMENT 8D 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****
TENTATIVE RULING:
Defendant Anibal Perezs (Defendant) motion for an order compelling third-party witness Mornen Haymer (Haymer) to comply with Defendants Deposition Subpoena for Personal Appearance is UNOPPOSED and GRANTED as follows.
This action arises out of a collision which occurred on August 10, 2023 at approximately 10:24 pm on Highway 99 in the County of Sacramento. Decedent, Alexander Verhoeven (Decedent) was riding his motorcycle at the time of the collision. Defendant explains in her moving papers that Decedent caused his motorcycle to strike the rear of a 2016 Acura being driven by co-defendant Michael Wang. (Moving MPA at 3:13-15.) Decedent was then thrown from his motorcycle and was thereafter struck in succession by multiple vehicles including by Defendant, who was operating her 1999 Lexus. (Id., at 3:15-17.)
Defendant further explains that Haymer was listed as an independent witness on the Traffic Collision Report prepared by the California Highway Patrol. (See Declaration of Christian B. Green ¶ 1, Exhibit A.) The Traffic Collision Report sets forth a statement that is represented to be provided by Haymer. (Id. at Exhibit A.)
Decedents parents, James Verhoeven and Karen Verhoeven (Plaintiffs), filed this action for wrongful death on December 23, 2024.
This matter was originally set to be heard on May 4, 2026. At the hearing, Defendants counsel represented that a subpoena, utilizing the proper form, had been served on
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
24CV026098: VERHOEVEN, et al. vs WANG, et al. 06/10/2026 Hearing on Motion for Order Directing Compliance with Subpoena for Deposition of Witness Mornen Haymer in Department 8D
Haymer but was inadvertently not included in Defendants moving papers. Accordingly, the Court continued this matter to allow Defendant to file and properly serve a supplemental declaration with the original subpoena and proof of service on the subpoena on all parties. This Courts order specified the declaration must be served no later than 16 court days prior to the continued hearing and that service on the non-party shall be by personal service.
On May 7, 2026, Defendant filed a supplemental declaration from her counsel, Christian Green. Mr. Green avers that while he inadvertently did not produce the Deposition Subpoena for Personal Appearance regarding non-party witness Haymer, the subpoena was properly issued and personally served on Haymer. (Green Decl., at ¶ 2.) Mr. Green also attaches a copy of the subpoena to his declaration. (Green Decl., at Exhibit C.)
Defendant has also filed two proofs of service related to the supplemental briefing, indicating that Plaintiffs counsel was email served with the supplemental declaration by email on May 7, 2026 and that the non-party was personally served with the supplemental declaration and the May 4, 2026 Minute Order on May 8, 2026.
Accordingly, there is now evidence before the Court that a deposition subpoena was properly issued and served on Haymer. Moreover, as discussed in this Courts May 4, 2026 Order, Defendant has already produced evidence that Haymer failed to appear at the scheduled deposition and did not object or otherwise respond to any served material. Furthermore, Haymer has not opposed this motion, which the Court construes as a concession on the merits. (See D.I. Chadbourne, Inc. v. Superior Court (1964) 60 Cal.2d 723, 728, n.4.)
Thus, for the foregoing reasons, Defendants motions is GRANTED. Haymer shall comply with the deposition subpoena no later than July 1, 2026.
The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1312 or further notice is required