DINWIDDIE vs JONES, et al.

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. EFFECTIVE APRIL 13, 2026, THIS DEPARTMENT HAS MOVED TO THE TANI G. CANTIL- SAKAUYE COURTHOUSE LOCATED AT 500 G STREET IN SACRAMENTO, CA.

ALL MOTIONS NOTICED FOR DEPARTMENT 53 WILL BE HEARD IN DEPARTMENT 16D OF

24CV005749: DINWIDDIE vs JONES, et al. 07/21/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other to Appoint a Discovery Referee in Department 16D

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 Dinwiddie’s motion to appoint discovery referee is ruled upon as follows.

Neither the original nor the amended notice of motion complies with Code of Civil Procedure §1010 and CRC Rule 3.1110(a), requiring the moving party to state the “grounds” for the motion presented.

Factual Background

This action arises from defendants’ alleged interference with plaintiff’s custody of her minor children. Trial is set for 6/7/2027.

According to the moving papers, plaintiff and defendants (other than the recently added Doe Defendant, Jennifer Jones) previously agreed that a discovery referee should be appointed in this case. Plaintiff thereafter proposed retired Judge Hom and new defendant Jennifer Jones did not object but the other defendants have not responded. Thus, plaintiff now requests an order appointing Judge Hom as discovery referee pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §638 and/or §639, adding that a discovery referee is “necessary” in this case based on the number of past and anticipated future discovery motions, as well as the 2027 trial date.

Notably, the moving points & authorities are entirely silent as to both the parties’ ability/inability to pay for any portion of the referee’s fees and the proposed allocation of the referee’s fees among the parties. However, the proposed order submitted with the moving papers indicates that no party has established an inability to bear a pro rata share of the referee’s fees and that these fees are to be “[s]plit between Plaintiff and the respective defendant(s) involved, unless otherwise apportioned by the referee.”

The Court finds on file no opposition or other written objection to the present motion by new defendant Jennifer Jones, which is construed as her concession on the merits of this motion. (See, e.g., D.I. Chadbourne, Inc. v. Superior Court (1964) 60 Cal.2d 723, 728, n.4.)

The remaining defendants, referred to as the “Original Defendants,” did file a “Response” to this motion in which they assert this motion “misstates the posture of the parties as to the appointment of a referee,” adding that there have been ongoing

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV005749: DINWIDDIE vs JONES, et al. 07/21/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other to Appoint a Discovery Referee in Department 16D

meet-and-confer efforts relating to a referee and other possible alternatives. Still, the Original Defendants expressly affirm that a discovery referee is indeed “necessary in this case” but suggest that there are other qualified individuals who could act as discovery referee such as retired Judge Bond. The Original Defendants’ “Response” is likewise silent as to both the parties’ ability/inability to pay for any portion of the referee’s fees and the proposed allocation of the referee’s fees among the parties.

In reply, plaintiff points out that the “Response” on file concedes a discovery referee is warranted but offers no objection to plaintiff’s proposal to appoint retired Judge Hom to this position again, leaving only the Original Defendant’s’ general comment that they “believ[e] that [Judge Bond’s or Judge Cuhane’s] backgrounds might be better suited to the parties’ discovery disputes in this case.” Thus, plaintiff request that Judge Hom be made the discovery referee in this case.

Discussion

Under Code of Civil Procedure §639(a)(5), a discovery referee is appropriate when the court determines one is necessary. (See, e.g., Lu v. Superior Court (1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 1264, 1269; CRC Rule 3.920(c).) A motion for the appointment of a discovery referee is left to the discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed on appeal unless there is abuse of discretion. (See, e.g., Mashon v. Haddock (1961) 190 Cal.App.2d 151, 168.)

This Court finds that the moving papers here set forth facts and circumstances which support the appointment of a discovery referee for all discovery purposes pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §639(a)(5), including the number of past discovery motions as well as ones which are anticipated in the future. As noted above, defendants’ “Response” to this motion explicitly indicates that a discovery referee is “necessary in this case” and defendant Jennifer Jones’ own failure to timely file any opposition or other written objection to the present motion is construed as her concession on the merits of this motion for appointment of a discovery referee. (See, e.g., D.I. Chadbourne, Inc., supra, 60 Cal.2d at 728, n.4.) Therefore, the present motion for an order appointing in this action a discovery referee to preside over all current and future discovery motions shall be granted.

Because the moving papers and the Original Defendants’ “Response” are entirely silent as to the allocation of the referee’s fees, the discovery referee fees are to be borne equally by the parties (i.e., 50% by plaintiff and 50% by defendants) unless and until ordered otherwise, including by potential recommendation of the discovery referee subject to Court approval.

Disposition

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV005749: DINWIDDIE vs JONES, et al. 07/21/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other to Appoint a Discovery Referee in Department 16D

For the reasons explained above, plaintiff Dinwiddie’s motion for appointment of a discovery is GRANTED.

Any and all pending and future discovery motions are hereby referred to the discovery referee to be appointed herein and absent an order otherwise, the discovery referee’s fees shall be borne equally by the parties unless and until ordered otherwise.

As to the selection of the specific discovery referee, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §640(a), the parties shall promptly meet-and-confer in an attempt to find a mutually agreeable referee. If they are able to agree, they shall no later than 8/3/2026 submit a proposed order which conforms to Code of Civil Procedure §639(d) (using Judicial Council Form ADR-110) to Department 16D.

If the parties are unable to agree, then they shall proceed under Code of Civil Procedure §640(b) with each side submitting to the Court no later than 8/10/2026 up to three nominees for appointment as referee (along with their respective hourly rates) and the Court will one referee from among the nominees (potentially with alternates if the appointment referee is not available) against whom there is no valid legal objection. The parties are reminded that grounds for potential objections are limited to those specifically set forth in Code of Civil Procedure §641.

Written objections shall be filed and served no later than 8/17/2026. If written objections are filed, the Court may set a hearing thereon pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §642. However, the parties may also elect to submit their objections on the papers without further hearing to expedite the process of appointment. If the parties do not stipulate to a discovery referee and require this process, plaintiff shall submit a proposed order on Form ADR-110 after the Court has selected the discovery referee.

In light of the foregoing, the Court declines to sign the proposed order submitted with the moving papers.

This minute order is effective immediately. Pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1312, moving counsel to prepare a formal order which conforms to Code of Civil Procedure §639(d) (using Judicial Council Form ADR-110).