JOHANNSEN vs NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, PA, et al.

24CV023707: JOHANNSEN vs NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, PA, et al. 05/06/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of DOcuments, Set One in Department 8D

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 8D, located at 500 G 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/j/16113421868 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

24CV023707: JOHANNSEN vs NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, PA, et al. 05/06/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of DOcuments, Set One 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 be 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 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

Plaintiff’s 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 directed to contact opposing counsel forthwith to advise counsel of Local Rule 1.06 and the Court’s tentative ruling procedure. If Plaintiff’s counsel is unable to contact opposing counsel prior to the hearing, Plaintiff’s counsel shall be available at the hearing, in person or remotely (telephonically or by video conference via Zoom as stated in the introductory notice to today’s tentative rulings), in the event opposing counsel appears without following the procedures set forth in Local Rule 1.06(B).

Plaintiff Heidi Johannsen’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion to Compel Further Response to Requests for Production of Documents from Defendant National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA (“Defendant”) is continued to June 22, 2026 to permit the parties to engage in further meet-and-confer efforts, specifically with respect to Defendant’s objections of third-party privacy rights, confidentiality, trade secret, attorney-client privilege, and the attorney workproduct doctrine.

At the outset, the Court must remind counsel that given the number of motions such as this which must be addressed on a daily basis, there are simply not enough judicial resources available to resolve each and every discovery dispute that could have and should have been resolved informally. This serves to highlight the critical need for all counsel's legitimate, reasonable and good faith meet-and-confer efforts before filing any discovery motion. Although it dealt with a motion to compel answers to deposition questions, the decision of Townsend v.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV023707: JOHANNSEN vs NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, PA, et al. 05/06/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of DOcuments, Set One in Department 8D

Superior Court (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1431 is instructive in that it clarifies that the meet-andconfer process is not intended to be some perfunctory formality but rather it “requires...a serious effort at negotiation and informal resolution.” (Id., at 1438.)

Having reviewed the moving and opposing papers, and the numerous discovery requests that the parties dispute, it is apparent to the Court that counsel must engage in the meet-and-confer process in good faith to further narrow the specific issues before the Court. Specifically, as the parties have entered into a stipulated protective order which concerns the handling of “information that is private, personal, or confidential, or that constitutes proprietary and/or sensitive business, personnel, and/or commercial information, trade secrets, confidential thirdparty information, and information that is protected against disclosure to third parties by any applicable privilege, work product protection or other statutory or common law protection” (see Stip.

Protect. Order, pp. 1:26-2:2), the Court believes that the parties can come to further agreement as to whether at least some of the information sought in the instant motion are protected under this order and how such information may be handled. Further, to the extent the Parties contend that certain privileges or corporate rights are implicated with respect to specific information such that no disclosure should be ordered, the Parties should discuss the particular balancing test that the Court must engage in and whether the Parties can meet their respective burdens with respect to such an inquiry, including where a protective order is in place. (See, e.g., Williams v.

Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 552 [third party privacy]; SCC Acquisitions, Inc. v. Superior Court (2015) 243 Cal.App.4th 741, 755 [corporate privacy rights; Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc, v. Superior Court (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1384, 1392-1396 [trade secret]].)

Counsel for the parties are thus ordered to engage in the meet-and-confer process in order to resolve or substantially narrow their discovery dispute. In order to encourage a meaningful dialogue and improve the prospects for resolution, the meet-and-confer efforts shall be conducted either in person or via telephone, rather than by the mere exchange of letters or emails.

Counsel shall meet and confer in person no later than June 1, 2026. After thoroughly meeting and conferring in an attempt to resolve each and every discovery request that the motion currently encompasses, and no later than June 8, 2026, counsel shall file a joint statement indicating which discovery requests have been resolved, and which requests (if any) remain outstanding. For each outstanding request, counsel shall set forth in the joint statement their respective positions, citing the relevant facts and authorities. Boilerplate or cut-and-paste arguments are strongly discouraged.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV023707: JOHANNSEN vs NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, PA, et al. 05/06/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of DOcuments, Set One in Department 8D

On the Court's own motion, the Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of DOcuments, Set One scheduled for 05/06/2026 is continued to 06/22/2026 at 01:30 PM in Department 8D at Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye Courthouse.