In re: The Dean Kingwell Smith and Lois Jean Smith Family Trust 1995

25PR001968: IN RE: THE DEAN KINGWELL SMITH AND LOIS JEAN SMITH FAMILY TRUST 1995 06/17/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other Notice of Motion to Quash, Amended in Department 129

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.

TENTATIVE RULING Trustee Cynthia Blackson’s (“Trustee”) motion to quash or in the alternative for protective order is ruled upon as follows.

The notice of motion does not provide notice of the Court’s tentative ruling system, as required by Local Rule 4.02.01(D) and 1.06(D). Movant is directed to contact counsel for opposing party forthwith and advise counsel of Local Rule 1.06 and the Court’s tentative ruling procedure. If Movant is unable to contact opposing party prior to the hearing, Movant shall be available at the hearing, in person or by telephone, in the event opposing party appears without following the procedures set forth in Local Rule 1.06(B).

On June 6, 2026, Petitioner Karin Kister (“Petitioner”) filed a petition to compel an accounting from March 17, 2017 to the present. (Petition, 5:15-17.) The parties entered into a stipulation on September 4, 2025 agreeing that Trustee will provide an accounting from January 1, 2021, to June 30, 2025. Petitioner has since served subpoenas for business records, with “most” subpoenas seeking records from March 17, 2017 to the present. (Memorandum of Points and Authorities [“MPA”], 4:4-8.)

Trustee seeks to quash 14 subpoenas for business records: 1. Subpoena for Production of Business Records issued to Custodian of Records for Charles Schwab & Co., Inc., Ref. No. 86342-02; 2. Subpoena for Production of Business Records issued to Custodian of Records for Computershare Inc., Ref. No. 86343-07; 3. Subpoena for Production of Business Records issued to Custodian of Records for El Dorado Savings Bank, Ref. No. 86343-02;

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25PR001968: IN RE: THE DEAN KINGWELL SMITH AND LOIS JEAN SMITH FAMILY TRUST 1995 06/17/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other Notice of Motion to Quash, Amended in Department 129

4. Subpoena for Production of Business Records issued to Custodian of Records for Hilton Grand Vacations Company LLC, Ref. No. 86343-06; 5. Subpoena for Production of Business Records issued to Custodian of Records for Sandra Properties Inc., Ref. No. 86343-04; 6. Subpoena for Production of Business Records issued to Custodian of Records for Stites Financial Consulting, Ref. No. 86343-05; 7. Subpoena for Production of Business Records issued to Custodian of Records for Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, Ref.

No. 86343-03; 8. Subpoena for Production of Business Records issued to Custodian of Records for Elk Grove Police Department, Ref. No. 86390-01; 9. Subpoena for Production of Business Records issued to Custodian of Records for Computershare Inc., 86342-06; 10. Subpoena for Production of Business Records issued to Custodian of Records for El Dorado Savings Bank, Ref. No. 86342-01; 11. Subpoena for Production of Business Records issued to Custodian of Records for Hilton Grand Vacations Company LLC, Ref.

No. 86342-05; 12. Subpoena for Production of Business Records issued to Custodian of Records for Sandra Properties Inc., Ref. No. 86342-03; 13. Subpoena for Production of Business Records issued to Custodian of Records for Stites Financial Consulting, Ref. No. 86342-04; 14. Subpoena for Production of Business Records issued to Custodian of Records for Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, Ref. No. 86342-02. (Amended Notice of Motion, 2:1-3:2.)

“If a subpoena requires...the production of books, documents, electronically stored information, or other things...the court, upon motion reasonably made by any person described in subdivision (b)...may make an order quashing the subpoena entirely, modifying it, or directing compliance with it upon those terms or conditions as the court shall declare, including protective orders. In addition, the court may make any other order as may be appropriate to protect the person from unreasonable or oppressive demands, including unreasonable violations of the right of privacy of the person.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.1(a).)

The parties dispute whether the stipulation signed on September 4, 2025 limits the scope of the Petitioner’s original request to compel an accounting. (See MPA, 1:26-28 [“Pursuant to the parties’ stipulation dated August 29, 2025, as ordered by the Court on September 4, 2025, the relevant accounting period for purposes of this proceeding is January 1, 2021 through June 30, 2025.”] and Opposition, 2:15-17 [“The subpoenas are therefore not based on Cynthia’s later

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25PR001968: IN RE: THE DEAN KINGWELL SMITH AND LOIS JEAN SMITH FAMILY TRUST 1995 06/17/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other Notice of Motion to Quash, Amended in Department 129

Petition to Approve First Accounting, nor are they limited by the narrower period Cynthia chose to address in that accounting.”].)

Trustee argues that the subpoenas “extending years beyond the stipulated accounting period are not proportional to the accounting issues presently before this Court” and are overbroad. (MPA, 6:9-10, 7:20-23.) Trustee further argues “the breadth of the requests, the duration of the requested records, and the nature of the sensitive information sought exceed what is reasonably necessary to adjudicate the accounting issues presently before the Court,” and that privacy rights require that “the stipulation should not be construed as a waiver of all objections to discovery requests extending substantially beyond the agreed accounting period or beyond matters reasonably necessary to evaluate the accounting presently before the Court.” (MPA, 8:9-11, 8:21-23.)

However, the terms of stipulation make no representations as to whether Petitioner’s underlying petition will be limited as part of the agreement to provide an accounting from January 1, 2021 to June 30, 2025. The stipulation indicates that the hearing on the petition will be continued and that Trustee is to provide an accounting, from January 1, 2021 to June 30, 2025. (Joint Stipulation, 7/24/2025, 2:3-11.) There is no mention of abandonment or modification of the underlying petition’s request for an accounting for the period of March 17, 2017 to the present. Because the stipulation does not limit the underlying petition requests, and appears to stipulate a continuance of the petition hearing in exchange for the accounting and supporting documents, the motion to quash on this basis is denied.

Next, Trustee states that subpoenas are overbroad because they use terms such as “documents,” “communications,” and “financial account.” (MPA, 6:15-17.) “A deposition subpoena that commands only the production of business records for copying shall designate the business records to be produced either by specifically describing each individual item or by reasonably particularizing each category of item.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2020.410 (a).) Discovery requests that are overbroad include, “insufficient identification of the requested information to acquaint the other party with the nature of information desired, attempt to place the burden and cost of supplying information equally available to both solely upon the adversary, [and] placing more burden upon the adversary than the value of the information warrants...” (Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v.

Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 224-225, citing Greyhound Corp. v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal. 2d 355.) The requests for documents, communications, and financial account[s] in this matter are not so overbroad that the other party cannot be acquainted with the nature of the information sought. While Trustee points out that expansive terms “increase the risk of disclosure of irrelevant private information,” Trustee does not indicate whether the requests insufficiently identify the information sought, whether the requests place an unequal burden onto a party, or any other basis to construe the terms as overbroad. (MPA, 6:23-26.)

The motion is denied on this basis, as well.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25PR001968: IN RE: THE DEAN KINGWELL SMITH AND LOIS JEAN SMITH FAMILY TRUST 1995 06/17/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other Notice of Motion to Quash, Amended in Department 129

The motion to quash is DENIED.

Trustee alternatively seeks a protective order limiting the scope of the production in the event the motion to quash is not granted. (Notice of Motion, 3:3-13.)

“[T]he court may make any other order as may be appropriate to protect the person from unreasonable or oppressive demands, including unreasonable violations of the right of privacy of the person.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.1(a).) A motion for protective order must include adequate meet and confer efforts and demonstrate good cause. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2019.030(a).)

Meet and confer efforts require that “counsel attempt to talk the matter over, compare their views, consult, and deliberate.” (Clement v. Alegre (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 1277, 1294.) While meet and confer efforts were ultimately unsuccessful, adequate efforts were made. (See Declaration of Howard Garfield, 2:11-22.) However, given the nature of the petition, and the information sought, the Court grants the motion for protective order only to require redactions of irrelevant personal information. (MPA, 9:4.) For the documents subject to production, the custodian of records may redact private personal information such as social security numbers, home addresses, and personal telephone numbers, to the extent appearing in such documents.

The motion for protective order is GRANTED in part.

Sanctions requested by both parties are DENIED, as both parties acted with substantial justification in bringing and opposing this motion.

Again, Movant is directed to contact counsel for opposing party forthwith and advise counsel of Local Rule 1.06 and the Court’s tentative ruling procedure. If Movant is unable to contact opposing party prior to the hearing, Movant shall be available at the hearing, in person or by telephone, in the event opposing party appears without following the procedures set forth in Local Rule 1.06(B).

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc. §1019.5; CRC, Rule 3.1312.)