INDONG ADVANCED MATERIALS, INC vs GREEN ENERGY GLOBAL, INC, AN ARIZONA CORPORATION, et al.

23CV005172: INDONG ADVANCED MATERIALS, INC vs GREEN ENERGY GLOBAL, INC, AN ARIZONA CORPORATION, et al. 08/19/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents in Department 8D

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 Department 8D Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-7719 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 8D Zoom Link is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16113421868 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 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

23CV005172: INDONG ADVANCED MATERIALS, INC vs GREEN ENERGY GLOBAL, INC, AN ARIZONA CORPORATION, et al. 08/19/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents in Department 8D

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 forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant Rollie Peterson’s (“Defendant”) motion for an order compelling further responses to requests for production and to compel production of documents, set one, propounded on Plaintiff Indong Advanced Materials, Inc. and request for sanctions is CONTINUED to September 28, 2026 at 1:30 p.m. in this department to permit the parties to engage in further meet-and-confer efforts.

At the outset, the Court must remind counsel that given the number of motions such as this which must be addressed on a daily basis, there are simply not enough judicial resources available to resolve each and every discovery dispute that could have and should have been resolved informally. This serves to highlight the critical need for all counsel's legitimate, reasonable and good faith meet-and-confer efforts before filing any discovery motion. Although it dealt with a motion to compel answers to deposition questions, the decision of Townsend v. Superior Court (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1431 is instructive in that it clarifies that the meet-and-confer process is not intended to be some perfunctory formality but rather it “requires...a serious effort at negotiation and informal resolution.” (Id., at 1438.)

Having reviewed the moving and opposing papers,[1] the numerous discovery requests that the parties dispute, and parties’ representations regarding the document production, it is apparent to the Court that further progress could be made if counsel continues to engage in the meet-and-confer process in good faith. Moreover, as of January 1, 2026, Code of Civil Procedure section 2016.040 requires that meet-andconfer efforts prior to bringing a motion to compel further responses be made “either in person, by telephone, or by videoconference.” (Emphasis added.)

Neither the declarations in support of the motion nor the opposition demonstrate that the

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV005172: INDONG ADVANCED MATERIALS, INC vs GREEN ENERGY GLOBAL, INC, AN ARIZONA CORPORATION, et al. 08/19/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents in Department 8D

required meet-and-confer efforts have been met. Not only do the declarations submitted to the Court in support of and in opposition to this motion fail to indicate that a legitimate, reasonable, and good faith effort to meet and confer was made, but these declarations also fail to present any evidence that the parties have met and conferred in person, by phone or by video as required.

As such, Counsel for the parties are thus ordered to engage in the meet-and-confer process in order to resolve or substantially narrow their discovery dispute. In order to encourage a meaningful dialogue and improve the prospects for resolution and consistent with recent revisions to Code of Civil Procedure section 2016.040, the meetand-confer efforts shall be conducted either in person or via telephone/videoconference, rather than by the mere exchange of letters or emails.

In resuming the meet-and-confer process, the parties should be guided by the observation(s) that: (1) motions are generally not rendered moot by the service of further responses or responsive documents, as Code of Civil Procedure section 1005.5 specifically provides that a motion is deemed made at the time it is filed and served; (2) where a party has not yet agreed to produce documents, the Court generally cannot compel production of those particular documents; (3) where a party failed to timely respond to requests, that party has waived “any objection to the demand, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010)” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300(a)); (4) where the Court has ordered responses, without objections, the responding party shall respond without objections; (5) the Court cannot relieve a party from waiver of objections without a properly noticed motion and a showing under 2031.300(a)(1-2), which is not currently before the Court.

Counsel shall meet and confer in person no later than September 8, 2026. After thoroughly meeting and conferring in an attempt to resolve each and every discovery request that the motion currently encompasses, and no later than September 14, 2026, counsel shall file a joint statement indicating which discovery requests have been resolved, and which requests (if any) remain outstanding. For each outstanding request, counsel shall set forth in the joint statement their respective positions, citing the relevant facts and authorities. Boilerplate or cut-and-paste arguments are strongly discouraged. The joint statement shall be no longer than ten pages in total.

Defendant is admonished that the motion will be dropped if no joint statement is filed. If

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV005172: INDONG ADVANCED MATERIALS, INC vs GREEN ENERGY GLOBAL, INC, AN ARIZONA CORPORATION, et al. 08/19/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents in Department 8D

Defendant contends that the parties have been unable to meet and confer as directed, Defendant shall file a declaration by the due date for the joint statement describing the efforts made to contact Plaintiff’s counsel.

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] To the extent that Plaintiff argues this motion is procedurally defective because

Defendant initially reserved a later hearing date and originally served these motion papers for that later hearing date, the Court rejects this argument. Plaintiff makes no argument that this motion was not filed and served 16 court days prior to the hearing as required by the Code of Civil Procedure section 1005, and there is no requirement for a party to seek ex parte relief to reserve a new, and perhaps earlier, hearing slot for its motion. Further, it is unclear what Plaintiff is contending when it accuses Defendant of “using an unapproved reservation slot.” In short, the Court does not find that this hearing is “procedurally void” based on the arguments raised by Plaintiff in Opposition. Further, Plaintiff has substantively responded to the motion.

On the Court's own motion, the Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents scheduled for 08/19/2026 is continued to 09/28/2026 at 01:30 PM in Department 8D at Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye Courthouse.