HAMMLER vs ALLISON, et al.

23CV006784: HAMMLER vs ALLISON, et al. 06/22/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel to Produce Video Footage in Department 8C

Tentative Ruling

NOTICE:

Consistent with Local Rule 1.06(B), any party requesting oral argument on any matter on this calendar must comply with the following procedure:

To request limited oral argument, on any matter on this calendar, you must call the Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-2615 by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the hearing and advise opposing counsel. At the time of requesting oral argument, the requesting party shall leave a voice mail 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 it has notified the opposing party of its intention to appear and that opposing party may appear via Zoom using the Zoom link and Meeting ID indicated below. If no request for oral argument is made, the tentative ruling becomes the final order of the Court.

Unless ordered to appear in person by the Court, parties may appear remotely either telephonically or by video conference via the Zoom video/audio conference platform with notice to the Court and all other parties in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure §367.75. Although remote participation is not required, the Court will presume all parties are appearing remotely for non-evidentiary civil hearings.

The Department 8C Zoom Link is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16039062174 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 160 3906 2174. To appear on Zoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID referenced above. NO COURTCALL APPEARANCES WILL BE ACCEPTED.

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 on the Court Reporter Services webpage available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://saccourt.ca.gov/general-information/court-reporter-services-transcripts. 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

23CV006784: HAMMLER vs ALLISON, et al. 06/22/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel to Produce Video Footage in Department 8C

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.

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***

This matter was continued from June 8, 2026 to today’s date pursuant to the Court's procedure in matters involving self-represented incarcerated litigants. The original tentative ruling is republished below.

The Litigation Coordinator shall make Plaintiff Allen Hammler available, by Zoom or telephonically, at 1:30 p.m. 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

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV006784: HAMMLER vs ALLISON, et al. 06/22/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel to Produce Video Footage in Department 8C

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.

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.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV006784: HAMMLER vs ALLISON, et al. 06/22/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel to Produce Video Footage in Department 8C

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.