Smartrise Engineering, Inc. vs. Brent Meline

34-2021-00308769-CU-BC-GDS: Smartrise Engineering, Inc. vs. Brent Meline 07/02/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Compliance with Court Order against Smartrise Engineering, Inc in Department 8A

Tentative Ruling

NO APPEARANCE REQUIRED

Defendant Alpha Elevator Control, Inc.’s (“Defendant” or “Alpha”) motion to compel compliance with the Court’s March 23, 2026, Order, and request for sanctions, is ruled upon as follows.

On March 23, 2026, the Court affirmed its tentative ruling, which it issued on March 5, 2026, with modifications. (3/23/26 Order.) In affirming its tentative ruling, the Court granted Alpha’s motion to compel further responses to special interrogatories, set three, as follows:

Defendant’s motion to compel further responses to special interrogatories, set three, and for sanctions is GRANTED as to interrogatory numbers 108, 111, 114, 117, 120, 123, 126, 129. All objections to these interrogatories are OVERRULED.

The motion is GRANTED IN PART as to interrogatory numbers 109-110, 112- 113, 115-116, 118-119, 121-122, 124-125, 127-128, 130-131. The Court SUSTAINS Plaintiff’s objections that these interrogatories are unduly burdensome and oppressive. However, the Court limits the interrogatories and orders Plaintiff to serve amended verified responses in accordance with the Parties’ agreement stated in the March 20, 2026 Joint Status Report. (Id. at p. 2.)[1]

Alpha makes this motion pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 2023.010, 2023.030, 2030.300, and argues that Smartrise refuses to comply with the Court’s March 23, 2026 Order. Although Alpha concedes that Smartrise served verified responses to the subject discovery on March 25, 2026, Alpha argues that Smartrise did not answer the interrogatories as propounded – “Smartrise altered the operative language of the interrogatories” by substituting the term “file name” for the term “file,” which according to Alpha, improperly resulted in Smartrise answering only whether files with similar names existed on the T: Drive, rather than whether the same files identified in the CATSD appendices existed there. (Mov.

MPA, p. 5:13-17 [citing Thomas Decl., filed 5/12/26, ¶¶ 22-23, Exh. C].) Alpha contends that on April 24, 2026, Smartrise “represented that corrected responses would be served early the following week, i.e., not later than April 28, 2026. But no corrected responses were ever served. [Citation.] To this day, Defendants remain without responsive answers to the interrogatories the

34-2021-00308769-CU-BC-GDS: Smartrise Engineering, Inc. vs. Brent Meline 07/02/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Compliance with Court Order against Smartrise Engineering, Inc in Department 8A

Court ordered Smartrise to answer.” (Id. at p. 6:14-17 [citing Thomas Decl., filed 5/12/26, ¶¶ 32–33, Exh. E].) With this, Alpha contends that Smartrise failed to obey the Court’s March 23, 2026 Order, and the Court should therefore order Smartrise to serve verified, code compliant amended responses that “directly answer the interrogatories as written and as ordered by the Court, without modification, qualification, or evasive reinterpretation.” (Id. at p. 8:2-6.) Alpha seeks to compel compliance as it relates to Smartrise’s responses to Special Interrogatories 108-131. Alpha also requests monetary sanctions in the amount of $9,215. (Thomas Decl., ¶ 38; Thomas Reply Decl., ¶ 2.)

In opposition, Smartrise maintains that it has complied with the Court’s March 23, 2026, Order, which is supported by the declaration of Mark Gianturco, PHD: “Smartrise properly responded to the SROG3 by employing hashes—a widely accepted method of determining file identicality.” (Opp’n, pp. 2:7-8, 3:5-7 [citing McNairy Decl., Exh. 3 at ¶ 7.a].) Smartrise contends that as demonstrated by the use of “hash matching,” Smartrise did not substitute the term “file” for “file name” when responding to the subject discovery.

Further, on May 15, 2026, after Alpha filed the present motion, Smartrise served second amended responses to the Special Interrogatories which it contends comply with the Court’s March 23, 2026 Order. (McNairy Decl., Ex. 4.) Lastly, Smartrise argues that the issues raised by Alpha— that Smartrise did not provide the information responsive to the subject discovery, and a purported difference between the files identified in Smartrise’s responses and those in the Consolidated Action Trade Secret Designation Statement appendices— amounts to a disagreement “about how to interpret data,” which is not a discovery issue but rather an issue for the fact finder at trial to decide. (Opp’n, pp. 4:21-5:5.)

In reply, Alpha reiterates that the Court’s March 23, 2026 Order required Smartrise to serve full and complete interrogatory responses by March 25, 2026, but as made evident by Smartrise’s second amended responses, Smartrise failed to comply with the Court’s Order. Alpha argues: “The timing speaks for itself: Smartrise served amended responses only after Alpha had gone to the trouble and expense of moving to compel and, by that very act, conceded its earlier responses fell short of what the Court ordered. Smartrise’s belated service cures nothing. Even if Smartrise’s May 15 second amended interrogatory responses had been responsive and complete (they were not), ‘untimely compliance is not compliance.’” (Reply., p. 6:5-9.)

Every Court has the power to “compel obedience to its judgments, order, and process,

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2021-00308769-CU-BC-GDS: Smartrise Engineering, Inc. vs. Brent Meline 07/02/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Compliance with Court Order against Smartrise Engineering, Inc in Department 8A

and to the orders of a judge out of court, in an action or proceeding pending thereto.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 128(a)(4).) Moreover, if a party fails to obey an order compelling further discovery response, the court is empowered to make such orders as are just, including the imposition of sanctions. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290(c).)

Based on the record before it, having considered the Parties’ arguments and papers, including Smartrise’s amended responses to the subject discovery, served on March 25, 2026, and Smartrise’s representation that it has served additional amended responses on May 15, 2026, the Court is not persuaded that Smartrise failed to comply with the Court’s March 23, 2026, Order. Accordingly, Alpha’s motion to compel compliance is DENIED.

To the extent that Alpha disputes the sufficiency of Smartrise’s amended responses, served on May 15, 2026, this issue is not properly before the Court through the instant motion. The Court’s ruling is without prejudice to Alpha bringing the appropriate motion, should it determine it to be necessary (i.e., a motion to compel further responses, accompanied with the filing of a separate statement pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1345, or a concise outline per Code of Civil Procedures section 2030.300), and which complies with the notice requirements set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 1005.

In light of the Court’s ruling, Alpha’s request for sanctions is also DENIED.

Alpha’s requests for judicial notice are unopposed and GRANTED. The Court takes judicial notice of the existence of the documents but not the truth of the statements contained therein. (Sosinsky v. Grant (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1548, 1564-70; Kilroy v. State of California (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 140, 145-148.)

Alpha’s Application to File Under Seal the Records Submitted in Support of Alpha Elevator Control, Inc.’s Motion to Compel Compliance (filed 5/12/26) is unopposed and GRANTED.

To request oral argument on this matter, you must call Department 8A at 916-874-5754 by 4:00 p.m., the court day before this hearing and notification of oral argument must be made to the opposing party/counsel. If no call is made, the tentative ruling becomes the order of the court. (Local Rule 1.06.)

Please check your tentative ruling prior to the next Court date at www.saccourt.ca.gov prior to the above referenced hearing date.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2021-00308769-CU-BC-GDS: Smartrise Engineering, Inc. vs. Brent Meline 07/02/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Compliance with Court Order against Smartrise Engineering, Inc in Department 8A

If oral argument is requested, the parties may appear in person or by Zoom with the links below:

To join by Zoom Link - https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16108301121 To join by phone dial (833) 568-8864, ID 16108301121

Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code section 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://saccourt.ca.gov/general-information/court-reporterservices-transcripts. Parties may contact Court-Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://saccourt.ca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/227/639084034465370000.

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

This minute order is effective immediately. Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312(a), no further written order or further notice is necessary.

[1] Pursuant to the March 20, 2026, Joint Status Report, the parties indicated that the

Smartrise’s position was as follows:

Smartrise will provide responses in compliance with the Court’s March 6, 2026, order, and further will identify the files first identified to Smartrise by Defense counsel during the March 6, 2026, hearing before the Court. Because of the efforts being undertaken by Smartrise’s expert to comply with these requests, Smartrise requests that it be given until Wednesday, March 25, 2026, to serve its responses to all Special Interrogatories subject to the Court’s order. [¶]

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2021-00308769-CU-BC-GDS: Smartrise Engineering, Inc. vs. Brent Meline 07/02/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Compliance with Court Order against Smartrise Engineering, Inc in Department 8A

Smartrise’s proposal to provide further responses to the interrogatories by March 25, 2026, is acceptable to Alpha. (Joint Status Report, filed 3/20/26, at p. 2.)