In the Matter of the MICHAEL O. PRELETZ LIVING TRUST DATED JULY 24, 1985

23PR000646: IN THE MATTER OF: MICHAEL O PRELETZ 01/21/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other Motion in Department 129

Tentative Ruling

RESPONDENT’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR A COURT ORDER COMPELLING NON-PARTY WITNESS AT&T’S COMPLIANCE WITH RESPONDENT’S DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS AND THE PRODUCTION OF ALL RESPONSIVE DOCUMENTS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF

MOTION FILED: 10/13/2025

RE: In re the Matter of the MICHAEL O. PRELETZ LIVING TRUST DATED JULY 24, 1985

MOVING PARTY: Respondent Tamara Preletz Attorney: Michael C. Murphy, Jr., (818) 558-3718

RESPONDING PARTY: Non-party witness AT&T Attorney: NA

NOTICE: Pursuant to Local Rule 1.06 (A), the court will make a tentative ruling on the merits of this matter by 2:00 p.m., the court day before the hearing. The complete text of the tentative ruling may be downloaded off the court’s website. If the party does not have online access, they may call the dedicated phone number for the Probate Department at (916) 875-2529 between the hours of 2:00 p.m. and 4:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing and receive the tentative ruling. If you do not call the court and the opposing party by 4:00 p.m. the court day before the hearing, no hearing will be held.

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 129 Zoom Link is https://saccourt-cagov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept129 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 3352 9231. 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-

23PR000646: IN THE MATTER OF: MICHAEL O PRELETZ 01/21/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other Motion in Department 129

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

TENTATIVE RULING Respondent Tamara Preletz’s (“Respondent”) motion for a court order compelling non-party witness AT&T’s compliance with Respondent’s deposition subpoena is UNOPPOSED and GRANTED.

Petitioner Jennifer Preletz Santana (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition against Respondent Tamara Preletz to invalidate the November 19, 2021 Trust Restatement of the Michael Preletz Living Trust (the “Trust”) based on alleged lack of capacity of the settlor. Respondent objects to the Petition.

As part of the Petition, Petitioner asserts that the settlor was isolated from Petitioner and family. (Motion, 1:20-21.) Respondent seeks documentation by way of a deposition subpoena for nonparty witness AT&T’s production of business records from 1/1/2018 to the present. Respondent alleges the production will determine whether there is evidence tending to prove or disprove Petitioner’s claim of settlor’s isolation from herself and family. Respondent seeks call logs from settlor’s phone number with AT&T to show the frequency (or lack thereof) and duration of telephone communications between settlor and family members.

Respondent attempted to obtain these records informally, but AT&T maintained the records would not be provided absent a court order. (Motion, 3:11-12.)

Opposition papers were due no later than nine court days before the hearing. (Code Civ. Proc., 1005(b).) Neither Petitioner nor non-party witness AT&T filed a response or opposition to Respondent’s motion to compel. The Court construes the failure to oppose the motion as a concession on the merits. (D.I. Chadbourne, Inc. v. Superior Court (1964) 60 Cal.2d 723, 728, fn. 4 [where nonmoving party fails to oppose a ground for a motion “it is assumed that [nonmoving party] concedes” that ground].)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23PR000646: IN THE MATTER OF: MICHAEL O PRELETZ 01/21/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other Motion in Department 129

The unopposed motion is GRANTED.

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc. §1019.5; CRC, Rule 3.1312.)