DUMITRU vs PEARL MATERIALS, INC., et al.

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

24CV015979: DUMITRU vs PEARL MATERIALS, INC., et al. 06/24/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel def Pearl Materials, Inc. to Provide Further Responses to Form Interrogatories 15.1 and 17.1, 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 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. MOTIONS NOTICED FOR DEPARTMENT 25 WILL BE HEARD IN DEPARTMENT 8D OF THE NEW COURTHOUSE. ALL HEARINGS WILL TAKE PLACE AT THIS NEW LOCATION*****

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Kevin Dumitru’s (“Plaintiff”) motion to compel Defendant Pearl Materials, Inc. dba Thompson Building Materials’s (“Defendant”) further responses to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories, Set One, Nos. 15.1 and 17.1 and for monetary sanctions is continued to July 29, 2026 to permit the parties to engage in further meet-and-confer efforts.

Plaintiff filed this personal injury action on August 12, 2024. Trial is set for November 17, 2026.

Plaintiff propounded the at issue form interrogatories on December 5, 2024. (Declaration of Catia Saraiva (“Saraiva Decl.”), ¶ 5, Ex. C.) On February 5, 2025, Defendant served unverified responses. (Id., ¶ 6, Ex. D.) On February 12, 2025, Defendant served his verification to the responses. (Id., ¶ 7, Ex. D.)

On March 26, 2025, Plaintiff’s counsel sent Defendant’s counsel a meet-and-confer email requesting amended responses. (Id., ¶ 8, Ex. F.) On April 18, 2025, Defendant served unverified amended responses. (Id., ¶ 9, Ex. G.) On September 24, 2025, Plaintiff’s counsel sent Defendant’s counsel a meet-and-confer letter regarding the Defendant’s amended responses. (Id., ¶ 10, Ex. H.) Between October 8, 2025 and November 10, 2025, the parties engaged in further meet and confer efforts, including a 30-minute phone call on November 7, 2025. (Id., ¶¶ 11-14. Exs. J, K.) On November 18, 2025, Defendant served verifications to his amended responses. (Id., ¶ 15, Ex. L.) On November 21, 2025, Defendant served unverified further amended responses. (Id., ¶ 16, Ex. M.) On December 3, 2025, Defendant served verifications to their further

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV015979: DUMITRU vs PEARL MATERIALS, INC., et al. 06/24/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel def Pearl Materials, Inc. to Provide Further Responses to Form Interrogatories 15.1 and 17.1, Set One in Department 8D

amended responses. (Id., ¶ 17, Ex. N.)

A month later, on Friday, January 2, 2026 at 2:23 PM, Plaintiff’s counsel sent a meetand-confer letter requesting a response by no later than Tuesday, January 6, 2026 by noon. (Id., Ex. O.) The meet-and-confer letter does not specifically address each of the at-issue requests and Defendant’s further amended responses. (Ibid.) On January 5, 2026, Defendant’s counsel sent a meet-and-confer email inviting Plaintiff’s counsel to further meet-and-confer regarding the further amended responses. (Id., Ex.

P.) On January 6, 2026, Plaintiff’s counsel sent another meet-and-confer email regarding Defendant’s further amended responses and invited Defendant’s counsel to call to discuss. (Id., Ex. Q.) Plaintiff’s counsel avers that she attempted to call Defendant’s counsel on January 7, 2026, but that the number was not in service. (Id., ¶ 23.) Neither party appears to have attempted to further meet-and-confer by phone.

Plaintiff now moves to compel further responses to the form interrogatories on the ground that Defendant’s responses are insufficient. Defendant opposes the motion.

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. The meet-and confer process is not intended to be some perfunctory formality but rather it “requires...a serious effort at negotiation and informal resolution.” (Townsend v.

Superior Court (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1431, 1438.) Indeed, a motion to compel must be accompanied by a declaration stating facts showing a “reasonable and good faith attempt” to resolve informally the issues presented by the motion before filing the motion. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2016.040, 2025.450(b)(2).) The purpose of the meetand-confer requirement is to bridge the gap between the parties – to force lawyers to reexamine their positions, and to narrow their discovery disputes to the irreducible minimum, before calling upon the court to resolve the matter. (Stewart v.

Colonial Western Agency, Inc. (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1006, 1016.)

Moreover, as of January 1, 2026, Code of Civil Procedure section 2016.040 requires that meet-and-confer efforts prior to bringing a motion to compel be made “either in person, by telephone, or by videoconference.” (emphasis added)

Having reviewed the briefing, including the declarations submitted by both moving and opposing counsel, it is apparent to the Court that counsel must make further efforts to

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV015979: DUMITRU vs PEARL MATERIALS, INC., et al. 06/24/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel def Pearl Materials, Inc. to Provide Further Responses to Form Interrogatories 15.1 and 17.1, Set One in Department 8D

engage in the meet-and-confer process in good faith and to comply with the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 2016.040. As noted above, based on the declaration submitted to the Court, the parties failed to meet-and-confer “either in person, by telephone, or by videoconference” with respect to Defendant’s further amended responses.

Additionally, it appears to the Court that the efforts that counsel made to meet-andconfer regarding the further amended responses were truncated—having taken place over the course of only five days. Moreover, it appears that while both parties contemplated further telephonic discussions, neither party made sufficient efforts to confirm a time and date on which to meet-and-confer.

As a result, Counsel must engage in further meet-and-confer efforts via “either in person, by telephone, or by videoconference” as required by statute and to engage in a meaningful dialogue.

In an effort to assist counsel with their efforts, the Court makes the following observations.

With respect to Form Interrogatory No. 15.1, a general denial is a denial of all allegations in the complaint. (Code Civ. Proc., § 431.30, subd. (d); Walsh v. West Valley Mission Community College Dist. (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th1532, 1545 [“The filing of a general denial denies in one sentence all the allegations of the complaint”].) It is not merely a refusal to accept a material allegation of the complaint, but it is instead a denial of those allegations. In Burke v. Superior Court of Sacramento County (1969) 71 Cal.2d 276, 285, the Supreme Court found that an interrogatory seeking “all the facts upon which you have based your denial of ... all ... the allegations contained in plaintiffs’ complaint” was permissible, especially where “the answer consists solely of a disfavored overbroad general denial which gives the plaintiff no guidance whatsoever regarding what specific matters legitimately are at issue and warrant discovery.” In responding to this interrogatory, a defendant must provide a response that addresses each subpart of the interrogatory for each denial of a material allegation and each affirmative defense.

With respect to Form Interrogatory No. 17.1, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.010, subdivision (b), “An interrogatory is not objectionable because an answer to it involves an opinion or contention that relates to fact or the application of law to fact, or would be based on information obtained or legal theories developed in anticipation of litigation or in preparation for trial.”

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV015979: DUMITRU vs PEARL MATERIALS, INC., et al. 06/24/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel def Pearl Materials, Inc. to Provide Further Responses to Form Interrogatories 15.1 and 17.1, Set One in Department 8D

Counsel shall meet and confer in person, by telephone, or by videoconference no later than July 10, 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 July 17, 2026, counsel shall file a joint statement indicating whether any part of the at issue discovery has been resolved, and what remains outstanding for the Court’s consideration. If any issues remain, 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.

The motion will be dropped if no joint statement is filed. If Plaintiff contends that the parties have been unable to meet and confer as directed, Plaintiff shall file a declaration by the due date for the joint statement describing the efforts made to contact Defendant.

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1019.5; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1312.)