Madrone Homeowners Association vs. Stephanie Stapleton

34-2021-00311585-CU-BC-GDS: Madrone Homeowners Association vs. Stephanie Stapleton 08/05/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Felipe Johnson's Production of Documents in Department 8C

Tentative Ruling

NOTICE:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that any oral arguments regarding this tentative ruling will be heard at 1:30 p.m. in Department 8C in the Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye Courthouse at 500 G Street, Sacramento, CA, the Hon. Richard C. Miadich presiding.

Any party who wishes to contest the tentative ruling below must:

(1) request a hearing by calling the Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-8380, by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the noticed hearing date, and leave a voicemail 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 they have notified the opposing party of their intention to appear; and

(2) advise the opposing party of the location and time of hearing pursuant to Local Rule 1.06.

If a hearing is not requested by 4:00 p.m. on the Court day before the noticed hearing date, the tentative ruling will become the final order of the Court.

If a hearing is requested, the Court prefers in-person attendance by the parties. However, parties may appear by Zoom unless the Court specifically orders in-person attendance. Parties choosing to appear by Zoom are reminded, however, that a Zoom appearance is still a formal appearance before the Court. Parties appearing via Zoom should do so from a quiet location, free from undue distractions, and wear attire suitable for an in-person court appearance.

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/16039062174

34-2021-00311585-CU-BC-GDS: Madrone Homeowners Association vs. Stephanie Stapleton 08/05/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Felipe Johnson's Production of Documents in Department 8C

SIP Address:

16039062174@sip.zoomgov.com

(833) 568-8864

ID: 16039062174

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 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

***NOTICE: EFFECTIVE APRIL 13, 2026, THIS DEPARTMENT HAS MOVED TO THE TANI G. CANTIL-SAKAUYE COURTHOUSE LOCATED AT 500 G STREET SACRAMENTO, CA. ALL MOTIONS NOTICED FOR DEPARTMENT 28 WILL BE HEARD IN DEPARTMENT 8C OF THE NEW COURTHOUSE. ALL PAPERS FOR

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2021-00311585-CU-BC-GDS: Madrone Homeowners Association vs. Stephanie Stapleton 08/05/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Felipe Johnson's Production of Documents in Department 8C

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***

Cross-Complainant Stephanie Stapleton’s (“Stapleton”) motion to compel Felipe Johnson to produce documents is ruled upon as follows.

Factual Background

On February 20, 2026, Stapleton served Johnson with a subpoena which included a request for production of documents (the “Subpoena”). (Laino Decl., ¶ 10, Ex. F.) The Subpoena required Johnson to appear for deposition on March 5, 2026 and expressly required Johnson to produce all responsive documents in his possession, custody, or control at or before the deposition. (Id.) The Subpoena sought documents falling into three broad categories: (a) documents relating to condensation leaks, HVAC maintenance, repairs, redesigns, mold, construction-defect litigation, and settlement agreements at the Madrone property; (b) similar documents for the same types of leaks and repairs at the Lesarra property; and (c) similar documents for the same types of leaks and repairs at the Vicara. (Id., RFP Nos. 1-20; 24-56.)

On February 26, 2026, Johnson served boilerplate objections to the document requests in the Subpoena. (Laino Decl., ¶ 11, Ex. G.) Johnson’s counsel, however, confirmed that the “objections were largely asserted for purposes of preservation” and that Mr. Johnson was “assembling responsive documents.” (Id., Ex. H.)

At his deposition, Johnson acknowledged reviewing the Subpoena and document requests. (Laino Decl., Ex. I at pp. 18:15-19:10.) He further testified that he produced only the documents he located relating to Stapleton’s unit. (Id. at pp. 20:1-8, 22:1-4, 28:10-14.) Johnson then admitted that he failed to search for numerous categories of documents specifically requested by the Subpoena. (Id. at pp. 22:1-4, 27:10-15.)

Johnson admitted he did not search for any documents concerning Cross Complainant John Duarte’s unit. (Laino Decl., Ex. I at pp. 20:9-21:3.) When asked whether he searched for emails relating to Duarte’s unit, Johnson answered “No.” (Id.) When asked

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2021-00311585-CU-BC-GDS: Madrone Homeowners Association vs. Stephanie Stapleton 08/05/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Felipe Johnson's Production of Documents in Department 8C

whether he searched using Duarte’s unit number, Johnson again answered, “No. I did not.” (Id.) Second, Johnson admitted he never searched for documents concerning other condensation leaks at Madrone. (Laino Decl., Ex. I at pp. 21:10-15, 22:1-4.)

Johnson also admitted that he did not search for responsive documents concerning similar leaks and repairs at Vicara or Lesarra. (Laino Decl., Ex. I at pp. 24:21-25:3, 27:1- 6, 298:8 22.) During the deposition, Johnson indicated that he did not believe such materials were relevant and acknowledged that he had not performed the requested search. (Id.) Cross-Complainants’ counsel specifically advised Johnson that responsive documents concerning condensation leaks at Vicara and Lesarra remained subject to the Subpoena. (Id. at pp. 22:8-12, 27:1-6; see also Ex. J at pp. 98:10 16, 99:14-16.)

Meet and Confer Efforts

Immediately after Johnson’s March 5, 2026 deposition, Cross-Complainants advised that Johnson’s production was deficient because he admitted he had not searched for numerous categories of responsive documents, including documents concerning other condensation leaks at Madrone, and similar issues at the Vicara and Lesarra properties. (Laino Decl., ¶ 17.)

Counsel then continued to meet and confer through written communication after the initial in-person communication, but despite an apparent agreement for production, the documents sought were not produced.

Motion to Compel

Stapleton now brings the instant motion to compel production of documents in response to request nos. 1-20 and 24-36.

Mr. Johnson opposes the motion, but the Court notes that Mr. Johnson fails to respond directly to Stapleton’s separate statement in support of the motion.

In addition, as emphasized by Stapleton on reply, “Mr. Johnson does not dispute that the documents sought by the Subpoena are relevant. He does not dispute that he admittedly failed to search for entire categories of responsive documents expressly

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2021-00311585-CU-BC-GDS: Madrone Homeowners Association vs. Stephanie Stapleton 08/05/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Felipe Johnson's Production of Documents in Department 8C

identified in the Subpoena— including documents concerning other condensation leaks at the Madrone property, and substantially similar defects and repairs at the Vicara and Lesarra developments. Nor does he submit any declaration or other competent evidence supporting his burden, privacy, or other objections. Instead, Mr. Johnson asks the Court to excuse his admitted noncompliance based solely on his conclusion that the requested documents were not relevant, and his status as a non-party.” (Reply, 3:2- 10.)

The Court finds that Mr. Johnson failed to adequately comply with the Subpoena. Stapleton’s motion to compel Felipe Johnson to fully comply with document request nos. 1-20 and 24-56 in the Subpoena is GRANTED.

Mr. Johnson must fully comply with document request nos. 1-20 and 24-56 no later than August 26, 2026.

Stapleton’s motion for sanctions is also GRANTED in the reduced amount of $3,010 (4 hours at $475/hour + 3 hours at $350/hour + $60 filing fee) as the Court does not find substantial justification for Mr. Johnson’s opposition to the motion or its failure to produce responsive documents. (Code Civ. Proc. §2023.030(a).) Sanctions shall be paid on or before August 26, 2026. If the sanctions are not paid by that date, Stapleton may prepare for the Court's signature a formal order granting the sanctions, which may be enforced as a separate judgment. (Newland v. Superior Court (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 608, 615.)

Mr. Johnson’s request for sanctions is DENIED.

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