STREICH vs SUTTER MEDICAL GROUP, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, et al.

23CV003090: STREICH vs SUTTER MEDICAL GROUP, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, et al. 07/20/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set Two in Department 8D

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

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant Sutter Medical Group, Inc.’s (“Defendant”) Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production from Plaintiff Sara Streich’s (“Plaintiff”) is CONTINUED to August 3, 2026 to permit the parties to engage in further meet-andconfer efforts.

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 (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1431 is instructive in that it clarifies that 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.” (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 further progress could be made if counsel continues to engage in the meet-and-confer process in good faith. 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 and consistent with recent revisions to Code of Civil Procedure section 2016.040, the meet-and-confer efforts shall

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV003090: STREICH vs SUTTER MEDICAL GROUP, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, et al. 07/20/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set Two in Department 8D

be conducted either in person or via telephone/videoconference, rather than by the mere exchange of letters or emails.

Counsel shall meet and confer in person no later than July 24, 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 27, 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.

On the Court's own motion, the Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set Two scheduled for 07/20/2026 is continued to 08/03/2026 at 01:30 PM in Department 8D at Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye Courthouse.