LINDER vs DALTON, et al.

24CV005410: LINDER vs DALTON, et al. 10/15/2025 Hearing on Motion - Other to Review the Deposition Transcript in Department 53

Tentative Ruling

NOTICE: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to “Public Notice – Civil Division – Wednesday Law and Motion Calendar” any oral arguments regarding this tentative ruling will be heard in Department 25, located at 720 9th Street, Sacramento, CA, the Hon. Julie G. Yap presiding. Should argument be requested by either party, the requesting party 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, request the hearing, and notify the opposing party of the location and time of hearing pursuant to Local Rule 1.06.

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.

The Court encourages parties to appear remotely for the hearing on the tentative ruling through the Court’s Zoom Application. But, any party wishing to appear in person may do so, provided that party notifies the Court by 4:00 the Court day before the hearing. 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/my/sscdept25 SIP Address: 16113421868@sip.zoomgov.com (833) 568-8864 ID: 16113421868 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 and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with

24CV005410: LINDER vs DALTON, et al. 10/15/2025 Hearing on Motion - Other to Review the Deposition Transcript in Department 53

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 be forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff in pro per Donald Linder’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion to Review and Correct Deposition Transcript is ruled upon as follows.

Factual Background

This action arises from a motor vehicle-pedestrian accident occurring on 3/21/2022. In the complaint filed on 3/20/2024, plaintiff in pro per Linder purports to assert causes of action for motor vehicle negligence, general negligence and an unspecified intentional tort, with the latter alleging that Defendant Ambrose Dalton (“Defendant”) “must have been speeding” and “must have been intoxicated.”

On December 5, 2024, Plaintiff’s deposition was taken remotely, with the deposition concluding the next day on December 6, 2024. (See Linder Decl., ¶ 2; Opp’n at 2:5-8.) On December 16, 2024, the Court Reporter’s Office mailed Plaintiff a letter pertaining to Volume I of the Plaintiff’s deposition and its availability for review, and on December 30, 2024, the Court Reporter’s Office mailed Plaintiff a letter pertaining to Volume I of the Plaintiff’s deposition and its availability for review. (Deras Decl., ¶¶1-2.) On May 21, 2025, Plaintiff emailed counsel for Defendant, requesting an extension of his time to correct the deposition transcript, and was informed that the time to make such corrections had passed, and that no extension would be given. (Batres Decl., ¶ 2.)

By way of the instant motion, Plaintiff seeks an order permitting him to review and correct the deposition transcript, despite the fact that more than 30 days have passed since the deposition was taken.

Discussion

Plaintiff argues that leave to amend his deposition transcript is proper pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 473(b), because he never received the court reporter’s notice that the deposition transcript was available for his review. In opposition, Defendant argues that the instant motion is untimely, that Plaintiff was properly served with the

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV005410: LINDER vs DALTON, et al. 10/15/2025 Hearing on Motion - Other to Review the Deposition Transcript in Department 53

deposition transcript, and that Plaintiff’s motion fails to comply with California Rules of Court requirements and Sacramento Local rules.

Code of Civil Procedure Section 2025.520 states:

(a) If the deposition testimony is stenographically recorded, the deposition officer shall send written notice to the deponent and to all parties attending the deposition when the original transcript of the testimony for each session of the deposition is available for reading, correcting, and signing, unless the deponent and the attending parties agree on the record that the reading, correcting, and signing of the transcript of the testimony will be waived or that the reading, correcting, and signing of a transcript of the testimony will take place after the entire deposition has been concluded or at some other specific time.

(b) For 30 days following each notice under subdivision (a), unless the attending parties and the deponent agree on the record or otherwise in writing to a longer or shorter time period, the deponent may change the form or the substance of the answer to a question, and may either approve the transcript of the deposition by signing it, or refuse to approve the transcript by not signing it.

(c) Alternatively, within this same period, the deponent may change the form or the substance of the answer to any question and may approve or refuse to approve the transcript by means of a letter to the deposition officer signed by the deponent which is mailed by certified or registered mail with return receipt requested. A copy of that letter shall be sent by first-class mail to all parties attending the deposition.

(d) For good cause shown, the court may shorten the 30-day period for making changes, approving, or refusing to approve the transcript.

(e) The deposition officer shall indicate on the original of the transcript, if the deponent has not already done so at the office of the deposition officer, any action taken by the deponent and indicate on the original of the transcript, the deponent's approval of, or failure or refusal to approve, the transcript. The deposition officer shall also notify in writing the parties attending the deposition of any changes which the deponent timely made in person.

(f) If the deponent fails or refuses to approve the transcript within the allotted period, the deposition shall be given the same effect as though it had been approved, subject to any changes timely made by the deponent

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV005410: LINDER vs DALTON, et al. 10/15/2025 Hearing on Motion - Other to Review the Deposition Transcript in Department 53

Code of Civil Procedure section 473(b) provides, in relevant part:

The court may, upon any terms as may be just, relieve a party or his or her legal representative from a judgment, dismissal, order, or other proceeding taken against him or her through his or her mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.

Courts have interpreted the “other proceeding” language in Code of Civil Procedure section 473(b) to mean “all the steps or measures adopted in the prosecution or defense of an action.” (Zellerino v. Brown (1991), 235 Cal.App.3d 1097, 1105.) A proceeding can “refer to a mere procedural step that is part of the larger action or special proceeding.” ([bid.)

Code of Civil Procedure section 473(b) empowers courts to grant relief from consequences of failure to meet procedural time limits “when the 'default' sought to be excused is a failure to take, within time, one of the requisite steps in the prosecution of the proceeding.” (Estate of Simmons (1914) 168 Cal. 390, 395-396.) Furthermore, the legislature did not expressly exclude the applicability of Code of Civil Procedure section 473(b) in proceedings under the Civil Discovery Act. (Zellerino, supra, 235 Cal.App.3d at p. 1106.)

However, while relief under Code of Civil Procedure section 473(b) is available in matters involving discovery, it may only be utilized if the Civil Discovery Act provides no analogous provision for relief. (Id., at p. 1107; Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. Sup. Ct. (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 263, 274.) There is no provision in the Civil Discovery Act providing relief when a party fails to revise a deposition transcript within the time constraints delineated in Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.520.

Defendant presents evidence that the court reporter sent Plaintiff two letters by mail notifying him of the availability of his deposition transcripts and notifying him that any revisions must occur within 35 days. (Deras Decl., ¶¶ 2-5.) Plaintiff did not contact the court reporter’s office within this time period. Therefore, the court reporter properly certified the transcripts under Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.540, subdivision (a) and under Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.520, subdivision (f), they were deemed approved when plaintiff failed to act.

Plaintiff contends that he “did not receive a notice from the court reporter that the transcript was available. Around the same time, defense counsel informed Plaintiff that her own mail to Plaintiff had been returned undelivered, despite Plaintiff’s address remaining unchanged.” (Mot., p. 4:4-7.) Plaintiff further attests that he never received the notices from the court reporter informing him that the transcripts were available. (Linder Decl., ¶ 2.) While Defendant has presented evidence that letters were mailed to Plaintiff regarding his deposition transcripts, Defendant has presented no evidence that

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV005410: LINDER vs DALTON, et al. 10/15/2025 Hearing on Motion - Other to Review the Deposition Transcript in Department 53

the letters were not returned as undeliverable. Indeed, the Court reporter’s office was informed by Plaintiff’s daughter in April of 2025 that they had not received the letters. (Deras Decl., ¶ 6.)

Based on the facts before the Court at this time, the Court concludes that Plaintiff has established that his failure to timely revise his deposition transcript pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 2025.520 was the result of Plaintiff’s admitted mistake, inadvertence, surprise, and/or excusable neglect. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED.

Plaintiff shall serve any revisions to his deposition transcript on or before November 15, 2025.

The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312 or further notice is required.