MELGAR DE ERAZO vs WALMART, INC., et al.

25CV013534: MELGAR DE ERAZO vs WALMART, INC., et al. 04/15/2026 Hearing on Motion to Quash Two Subpoenas and for Protective Order 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

25CV013534: MELGAR DE ERAZO vs WALMART, INC., et al. 04/15/2026 Hearing on Motion to Quash Two Subpoenas and for Protective Order in Department 8D

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

This matter was previously continued from April 8, 2026 for an informal discovery conference. The previous tentative ruling is reproduced below.

***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).

Counsel for Plaintiff Ana M. Melgar de Erazo’s (“Plaintiff”) and Defendant Walmart, Inc. (“Defendant”) are ordered to appear in Court on April 15, 2026 at 1:30 p.m. in Department 25 located at Gordon D. Schaber Sacramento County Courthouse at 720

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV013534: MELGAR DE ERAZO vs WALMART, INC., et al. 04/15/2026 Hearing on Motion to Quash Two Subpoenas and for Protective Order in Department 8D

9th St, Sacramento, CA 95814 to engage in an informal discovery conference.

In resuming the meet-and-confer process, the parties should be guided by the observation(s) that: (1) the motion is not rendered moot by the withdrawal of the subpoenas. Code of Civil Procedure section 1005.5 specifically provides that a motion is deemed made at the time it is filed and served; (2) while Plaintiff has placed her medical condition at issue by bringing the instant action, Defendant is not entitled to her entire medical record. However, Defendant is entitled to certain unredacted medical records; (3) the fact that Plaintiff has already produced redacted versions of her medical records that she finds to be “directly relevant” to the action has no bearing upon whether the Court would grant a motion to quash.

The Court, not Plaintiff’s counsel, makes determination as to whether certain records are relevant; (4) many of Defendant’s arguments concern matters that are not properly before the Court (Plaintiff’s lack of a privilege log, Plaintiff’s handling of requests for admission); (5) the parties’ meet-andconfer efforts to date have not been made in a meaningful, good faith attempt to resolve the discovery issues raised in this motion; (6) any sanctions that are awarded will take into consideration the entirely insufficient meet-and-confer communications by the parties prior to Plaintiff bringing the instant motion; and (7) the proposed order submitted by Plaintiff is seeks improper relief, which would result in prejudice to Defendant.