SCHNEIDER vs HARDESTY

23CV004147: SCHNEIDER vs HARDESTY 08/17/2026 Hearing on Motion for Order Deeming Matters Admitted in Department 8D

Tentative Ruling

NOTICE:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that effective April 13, 2026, this department has moved to the Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye courthouse located at 500 G Street in Sacramento, CA 95814. All hearings noticed for Department 25 will be heard in Department 8D of the new courthouse. Parties who wish to contest the tentative ruling below must: (1) request a hearing by calling the Department 8D Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-7719 no later than 4:00 p.m. on the Court day before the scheduled CMC, and (2) advise opposing counsel of the request.

If a hearing is not requested by 4:00 p.m. on the Court day before the scheduled CMC, the tentative ruling shall become the final order of the Court. The Court encourages parties to appear remotely for the hearing on the tentative ruling through the Court’s Zoom Application. But, any party wishing to appear in person may do so, provided that party notifies the Court by 4:00 the Court day before the hearing. If a hearing is requested, the Court assumes that all parties will appear remotely via Zoom unless the Court orders inperson attendance.

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/16113421868 SIP Address: 16113421868@sip.zoomgov.com (833) 568-8864 ID: 16113421868 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

23CV004147: SCHNEIDER vs HARDESTY 08/17/2026 Hearing on Motion for Order Deeming Matters Admitted in Department 8D

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant Joseph Hardesty’s (“Defendant”) Motion to Deem Requests for Admission Admitted is ruled upon as follows.

Defendant served the at issue discovery requests on April 3, 2026. (Marcroft, Decl., ¶ 5.) Plaintiff Jay Schneider (“Plaintiff”) failed to timely serve responses. (Marcroft Decl., ¶ 10.)

Defendant now moves for an order deeming matters admitted.

Plaintiff opposes, asserting that responses in substantial compliance were served on June 1, 2026 and a verification by counsel was provided. (Mahon Decl. ¶¶ 4, Exhs. 1-2.) However, the responses to requests for admission filed before the Court are not verified by Plaintiff. Counsel for Plaintiff attests that Plaintiff will sign the verification “pending meeting at [counsel’s] office when [Plaintiff] returns to Sacramento.” Further, counsel does attach any proof of service.

In reply, Counsel for Defendant declares that the responses to RFAs filed with the Court in conjunction with Plaintiff’s response have never been served on Defendant. (Marcroft Reply Decl. ¶ 8.)

Accordingly, based on the record before the Court, Plaintiff has not yet served responses in substantial compliance. (See Appleton v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 636; Melendrez v. Superior Court (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 1343, 1348.)

Defendant’s motion is granted, unless Plaintiff serves, “before the hearing on the motion,” verified proposed responses, without objections, that are in substantial compliance with Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.220. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280(c).). If substantial compliance occurs before the hearing, the parties are required to contest this tentative pursuant to Local Rule 1.06(D) and appear at hearing to inform the court. If such appearance does not occur, the Court will presume no such substantial compliance has occurred, and the motion will be granted.

Mandatory monetary sanctions are awarded against Plaintiff in the amount of $950 ($415/hour x 2 hours + $120 filing fee). (Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280(c) [“It is mandatory that the court impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV004147: SCHNEIDER vs HARDESTY 08/17/2026 Hearing on Motion for Order Deeming Matters Admitted in Department 8D

response to requests for admission necessitated this motion.”]; Marcroft Decl. ¶ 11.) Plaintiff is to pay monetary sanctions to Defendant on or before August 31, 2026. If the sanction is not paid by that date, Defendant may prepare for the court's signature a formal order granting the sanction, which may be enforced as a separate judgment. (Newland v. Superior Court (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 608, 615.)

The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312 or further notice is required.