HAMMLER vs ALLISON, et al.

23CV006784: HAMMLER vs ALLISON, et al. 06/08/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel to Produce Video Footage 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) 874-2615, 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

SIP Address:

16039062174@sip.zoomgov.com

(833) 568-8864

ID: 16039062174

23CV006784: HAMMLER vs ALLISON, et al. 06/08/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel to Produce Video Footage in Department 8C

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 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***

The Court has adopted the following procedure for hearings in Department 8C for selfrepresented incarcerated parties.

The clerk shall fax a copy of the tentative ruling to the litigation coordinator on or before the date of the scheduled hearing. The litigation coordinator shall provide the tentative ruling to Plaintiff Allen Hammler within 48 hours of receiving it.

The hearing date shall automatically be continued two weeks for oral argument. The continuance date will always be an appearance required hearing so that Plaintiff Allen

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV006784: HAMMLER vs ALLISON, et al. 06/08/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel to Produce Video Footage in Department 8C

Hammler need not request oral argument.

The Litigation Coordinator shall make Plaintiff Allen Hammler available, by Zoom or telephonically, at 1:30 p.m. on the date of the continued hearing date, which will be June 22, 2026, to participate in oral argument.

To appear on Zoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom ID: 16039062174.

Plaintiff in pro per Allen Hammler’s (“Plaintiff”) motion to compel Defendants[1] to produce video footage is ruled upon as follows.

This action arises out of an alleged incident that occurred on December 13, 2022 in which Plaintiff alleges that he was physically assaulted by prison staff. The Complaint alleges that the incident was recorded via cameras mounted on buildings on the prison grounds.

On October 29, 2023, Plaintiff served Defendants with Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Evidence and Documents, which included a request for “any and all video footage relevant to CDCR grievance(s) numbered 352232 and 353122.” (See Hammler Decl., Exh. A, p. 2:10-11.) On December 4, 2023, Defendants served a response that stated, “Responding Party will make arrangements for Plaintiff to view the videos responsive to this request.” (See Hammler Decl., Exh. A, p. 2:13-14.)

On November 25, 2025, Defendants’ counsel met with Plaintiff via videoconference and allowed Plaintiff to view three videos related to the alleged events of this lawsuit. Plaintiff contends that Defendants possess more videos of the incident than what they made available as Plaintiff asserts that there are at least five buildings near the incident with cameras mounted to them that face the are where the incident occurred. Plaintiff also asserts that during the internal disciplinary proceedings following the incident, he was shown video of the incident that Defendants did not provide on November 25, 2025.

Defendants assert that the videos provided on November 25, 2025 are the only three videos of the incident. Defendants support this assertion with a declaration from Amanda Byers, a CDCR employee assigned to the prison where the incident took place and who serves as the custodian of records of video surveillance footage at that facility.

Plaintiff also asserts that there is video of an interview he gave on December 14, 2022 as part of the internal investigation into the incident after Plaintiff alleged that Defendants had used excessive force against him during the subject incident. Defendants’ opposition does not address this alleged video.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV006784: HAMMLER vs ALLISON, et al. 06/08/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel to Produce Video Footage in Department 8C

Plaintiff’s memorandum of points and authorities cites Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310 as the basis for his motion. That statute governs motions to compel further responses. Such motions must be brought within 45 days of service of the verified response, and any extension of this deadline must be agreed to in writing. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.310(c).) This deadline is jurisdictional “in the sense that it renders the court without authority to rule on motions to compel other than to deny them.” (Sexton v.

Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.app.4th 1403, 1410.) Defendants’ opposition does not raise a timeliness argument. The record before the Court is not clear, as neither party indicates whether Defendants’ responses were ever verified, and there is no mention of any agreement to extend the 45-day deadline, to the extent it has been triggered. However, given the length of time that has elapsed since the responses were served, and the fact that Defendants have produced videos in accordance with their response, the Court infers that the responses were verified.

Therefore, the motion is DENIED as untimely.

To the extent Plaintiff seeks relief other than that provided for in Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310, such as through section 2031.320, the Court is not persuaded by Plaintiff’s showing that Defendants possess additional videos of the incident beyond the three provided to Plaintiff on November 25, 2025. Thus, to the extent Plaintiff seeks production of additional videos under section 2031.320, or requests evidence sanctions based on spoliation of evidence, the requests are DENIED. Plaintiff is free to conduct further discovery on the issue of whether Defendants are withholding or have destroyed additional videos.

As for the alleged video of Plaintiff’s investigatory interview conducted shortly after the incident, the Court notes that Defendants do not address this video in their opposition. However, this video, if it exists, would seemingly be responsive to Plaintiff’s request and encompassed within Defendants’ response. Thus, Defendants’ counsel is directed to determine whether Defendants are in possession of this video, and if so, to make arrangements for Plaintiff to view it. If Defendants are not in possession of this video, Defendants’ counsel is directed to provide Plaintiff with a declaration from a qualified CDCR employee stating that Defendants do not possess the video.

Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED. However, Defendants are directed to determine whether the video interview identified in Plaintiff’s motion is in CDCR’s possession, and if so, to make it available to Plaintiff, and if not, to provide Plaintiff with a declaration affirming this claim.

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.)

[1] There are several named Defendants in this matter. Plaintiff’s motion, and the underlying discovery request, is not

directed at any individual Defendant.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV006784: HAMMLER vs ALLISON, et al. 06/08/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel to Produce Video Footage in Department 8C