Christopher Mayo as the Personal Representative of the Estate of Stephen Mayo vs. Shi-iii Prairie City Landing Owner LLC

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

34-2022-00327588-CU-PO-GDS: Christopher Mayo as the Personal Representative of the Estate of Stephen Mayo vs. Shi-iii Prairie City Landing Owner LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company 08/04/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel the Deposition of Cheryl Martin and Request for Production of Documents in Department 16D

*** NOTICE: EFFECTIVE APRIL 13, 2026, THIS DEPARTMENT HAS MOVED TO THE TANI G. CANTIL-SAKAUYE COURTHOUSE LOCATED AT 500 G STREET IN SACRAMENTO, CA. ALL MOTIONS NOTICED FOR DEPARTMENT 53 WILL BE HEARD IN DEPARTMENT 16D OF THE NEW COURTHOUSE. ALL HEARINGS WILL TAKE PLACE AT THIS NEW LOCATION. PARTIES MAY CONTINUE TO APPEAR REMOTELY IN DEPARTMENT 16D UNLESS SPECIFICALLY ORDERED OTHERWISE. ***

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiffs’ motion to compel the deposition of Cheryl Martin, along with the production of documents responsive to the included requests for production, is ruled upon as follows.

The notice of motion does not comply with Code of Civil Procedure §1010 or CRC Rule 3.1110(a), requiring the moving parties to state the “grounds” for the motion presented.

Moving counsel failed to comply with CRC Rule 3.1110(b)(4).

Factual Background

This elder abuse/wrongful death action was commenced in September 2022 and trial is currently set for 9/29/2026.

Plaintiffs now move for an order compelling the deposition of Cheryl Martin, along with the production of documents responsive to the included requests for production, and imposing monetary sanctions of $3,250.

Defendants oppose, arguing that the present motion to compel is (1) “premature” insofar as defendants “have not refused to schedule the depositions [sic] at issue in this Motion [sic];” (2) “procedurally improper and premature because Plaintiffs did not meet and confer in good faith” and “instead of participating in a good faith discussion, Plaintiffs filed the instant Motion the very next day;” and (3) “Plaintiffs themselves have engaged in the same conduct they now complain of by refusing to appear for deposition as noticed by Defendants for over a year and a half, even though Plaintiff Christopher Mayo and his spouse, Karen Mayo, are the key witnesses in this case.” (Opp., p.2:2- 11.)

According to the opposition, “Defendants continue to produce witnesses and cooperatively participate in depositions, and any delay in scheduling Ms. Martin[’s] deposition[] stems from a lack of diligence on part of Plaintiffs in moving discovery along in this case,” with the latter not appearing for deposition until June and July 2026 and “only after Defendants were forced to file a motion to compel.” The opposition further asserts that plaintiffs failed to respond to defendants’ request for a

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2022-00327588-CU-PO-GDS: Christopher Mayo as the Personal Representative of the Estate of Stephen Mayo vs. Shi-iii Prairie City Landing Owner LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company 08/04/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel the Deposition of Cheryl Martin and Request for Production of Documents in Department 16D

meet-and-confer call “to more productively discuss outstanding discovery disputes,” instead filing an unnecessary motion when defendants “are willing to produce the requested deponents and have never refused to do so.”

Legal Standards for Discovery

“[A]ny party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action or to the determination of any motion made in that action, if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” (Code Civ. Proc. §2017.010.) “In the absence of contrary court order, a civil litigant’s right to discovery is broad...[and] statutes governing discovery ‘must be construed liberally in favor of disclosure unless the request is clearly improper by virtue of well-established causes for denial.’ [Citation.]” (Williams v.

Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 541; see also Greyhound Corp. v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 355, 378 [“disclosure is a matter of right unless statutory or public policy considerations clearly prohibit it”].) Nevertheless, while civil discovery is broad, it is not limitless. (Board of Registered Nursing v. Superior Court (2021) 59 Cal.App.5th 1011, 1039 [citing Calcor Space Facility v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 223].) It cannot be based on pure speculation. (Digital Music News LLC v.

Superior Court (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 216, 227.)

The party seeking to resist discovery based upon objections has the burden to justify its objections. (Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255 [citing Coy v. Superior Court (1962) 58 Cal.2d 220-221].) Indeed, in the discovery context, information is relevant “if it might reasonably assist a party in evaluating its case, preparing for trial, or facilitating a settlement. [Citations omitted.] Admissibility is not the test and information, unless privileged, is discoverable if it might reasonably lead to admissible evidence.” (Lipton v. Superior Court (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1599, 1611-1612 [emphasis in original].) “Any doubts regarding relevance are generally resolved in favor of allowing the discovery.” (Mercury Interactive Corp. v. Klein (2007) 158 Cal.App.4th 60, 98.)

Discussion

At the outset, the Court must remind all counsel but especially plaintiffs’ 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-

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2022-00327588-CU-PO-GDS: Christopher Mayo as the Personal Representative of the Estate of Stephen Mayo vs. Shi-iii Prairie City Landing Owner LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company 08/04/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel the Deposition of Cheryl Martin and Request for Production of Documents in Department 16D

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.) Additionally, Code of Civil Procedure §2016.040’s requirements for a meet-and-confer declaration which are applicable to many different discovery motions were recently amended and §2016.040(a) now expressly mandates that meet-and-confer efforts be conducted “either in person, by telephone, or by videoconference.” (Bold added for emphasis.)

Indeed, the purpose of this new requirement is to maximize the resolution of discovery disputes by fostering an open dialogue which is not constrained by the mere exchange of emails and/or letters which often fail to resolve the disputes.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, this Court declines to deny the present motion based solely on plaintiffs’ failure to meet and confer in good faith prior to bringing this motion. While the requirements of §2016.040 are discussed above, Code of Civil Procedure §2025.450 primarily governs the present motion to compliance with a deposition notice and subdivision (b)(2) provides as follows:

The motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040, or, when the deponent fails to attend the deposition and produce the documents, electronically stored information, or things described in the deposition notice, by a declaration stating that the petitioner has contacted the deponent to inquire about the nonappearance. (Underline added for emphasis).

Thus, even though the moving declaration of attorney Jay may not comply with the aforementioned requirements of §2016.040(a) itself, such declaration does satisfy §2025.450(b)(2)’s alternative, less onerous requirement of “a declaration stating that the petitioner has contacted the deponent to inquire about the nonappearance.”

The opposition’s additional arguments that plaintiffs themselves have engaged in the same conduct they now complain of (“refusing to appear for deposition as noticed by Defendants for over a year and a half”) and that defendants “have not refused to schedule the depositions [sic] at issue in this Motion [sic]” do not in this Court’s view mandate denial of this motion, especially in light of the fact that (1) the deposition of Ms. Martin was originally noticed for 2/3/2025; (2) her deposition was re-noticed for 4/22/2026; (3) the deposition of Ms. Martin has still not commenced; and (4) defendants are not refusing to schedule or produce Ms. Martin for deposition. Therefore, coupled

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2022-00327588-CU-PO-GDS: Christopher Mayo as the Personal Representative of the Estate of Stephen Mayo vs. Shi-iii Prairie City Landing Owner LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company 08/04/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel the Deposition of Cheryl Martin and Request for Production of Documents in Department 16D

with the fact that trial is currently set to commence on 9/29/2026, the Court will here order that Ms. Martin appear for deposition and in doing so, rejects the opposition’s suggestion that this motion has been rendered “moot” because defendants “intend to produce” Ms. Martin for deposition. (See, e.g., Code Civ. Proc. §1005.5 [motion deemed made at time filed and served “but this shall not deprive a party of a hearing of the motion ”].)

However, the Court finds that the bulk of the moving papers’ arguments (including the plaintiffs’ separate statement) which pertain to the document requests included in the subject deposition notice and defendants’ objections thereto are not persuasive insofar as defendants are permitted, and indeed required, to “promptly” serve written objections to the deposition notice and documents requests (see, Code Civ. Proc. §2025.410(a)); defendants are not obligated to provide either a privilege log or a statement of compliance in advance of the deposition; the moving papers not only fail to show that any or all of the asserted objections to the document requests lack merit but also fail to “set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the production for inspection of any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice,” as required by §2025.450(b)(1); and plaintiffs’ suggestion that “privacy interests” “can be addressed through a protective order” is legally incorrect (see, e.g., Alch v.

Superior Court (Time Warner Entertainment Co.) (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1412, 1423-1425, 1432-1433; Tien v. Superior Court (Tenet Healthcare Corp.) (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 528, 539-540; In re Marriage of Harris (2004) 34 Cal.4th 210, 244).

That said, absent an agreement otherwise, the Court expects that all documents responsive to the subject requests for production to which no objection has been asserted will be produced at the deposition of Ms. Martin and further, no motion to compel the production of any responsive document will subsequently be filed until after plaintiffs complete the requisite meet-and-confer process either in person, by telephone, or by videoconference.

Disposition

For the reasons explained above, plaintiffs’ motion to compel the deposition of Ms. Martin, along with the production of documents responsive to the included requests for production to which no objection has been asserted, is GRANTED.

Ms. Martin shall appear for deposition, provide testimony and produce responsive documents at a mutually agreeable time no later than 8/31/2026 (unless plaintiffs agree

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2022-00327588-CU-PO-GDS: Christopher Mayo as the Personal Representative of the Estate of Stephen Mayo vs. Shi-iii Prairie City Landing Owner LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company 08/04/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel the Deposition of Cheryl Martin and Request for Production of Documents in Department 16D

to a later date memorialized in writing).

Plaintiffs’ request for monetary sanctions is DENIED because the amount requested is unreasonably excessive, defendants’ opposition was substantially justified and the imposition of sanctions would be unjust under the present circumstances.

Moving parties to provide notice of this ruling and file proof of service of same within five (5) court days.

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc. §1019.5; CRC Rule 3.1312.)