BRIDGES vs CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

24CV016129: BRIDGES vs CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 02/25/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Production of Documents in Department 25

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 25 Zoom Link is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept25 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 1342 1868. 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 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

24CV016129: BRIDGES vs CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 02/25/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Production of Documents in Department 25

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

Plaintiff Robert Bridges’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion to Compel Production of Documents from Defendant California Department of Transportation (“Defendant”) is ruled upon as follows.

Plaintiff appearing in pro per, as sole owner of BF Contracting Engineering and as managing partner of Homeless Haz Engineering JV; and Black Foundation (collectively “Plaintiffs”) filed the Complaint in this action against Defendant on August 15, 2024. BF Contracting Engineering and the Black Foundation are listed as a corporation with the California Secretary of State.

It is unclear from the instant motion whether Plaintiff brings the instant motion in his individual capacity or on behalf of any of the entities identified as plaintiffs in this matter.

To the extent that Plaintiff brings the instant motion on behalf of corporate entities, the motion must be dropped as improper. Plaintiff cannot bring a motion in pro per on behalf of a corporation.[1]

To the extent that Plaintiff brings the instant motion in an individual capacity, the motion must be denied as untimely. Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310 provides that “Unless notice of this motion is given within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or on or before any specific later date to which the demanding party and the responding party have agreed in writing, the demanding party waives any right to compel a further response to the demand.” The statutory time “within which to make a [motion to compel further responses] is mandatory and jurisdictional” and the failure to file it within the required time frames “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 [emphasis added].)

Defendant presents evidence that it served verified responses to the at issue discovery requests on November 4, 2025. (Davis Decl., ¶ 2.) Plaintiff filed the instant motion on January 22, 2026, approximately 79 days later. Plaintiff failed to file a reply and did not address timeliness in the moving papers. Given the uncontested evidence before it, the Court denies the pending motion as untimely.[2]

The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to California Rules

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV016129: BRIDGES vs CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 02/25/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Production of Documents in Department 25

of Court, rule 3.1312 or further notice is required.

[1] It is well settled that a “‘corporation, unlike a natural person, cannot represent itself

before courts of record in propria persona, nor can it represent itself through a corporate officer, director or other employee who is not an attorney. It must be represented by licensed counsel in proceedings before courts of record.” (CLD Construction, Inc. v. City of San Ramon (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 1141, 1145; see Merco Const. Engineers, Inc. v. Municipal Court (1978) 21 Cal.3d 724, 729 quoting Vann v. Shileh (1975) 54Cal.App.3d 192, 199.) The instant motion is brought by Robert Bridges, “in pro per.” It does not appear that Mr. Bridges is a licensed attorney. As such, the filing by an unlicensed individual on behalf of corporations is not permissible. [2] In his motion, Plaintiff asserts that the responses were not verified. In opposition,

Defendant asserts that the responses were verified. Plaintiff did not file a reply to address these differing assertions. Neither party provided the actual requests at issue or the responses. Given that Plaintiff is the moving party, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not met his burden.