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

23PR000646: IN THE MATTER OF: MICHAEL O PRELETZ 02/18/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other Motion to Quash Bank of America in Department 129

Tentative Ruling

RESPONDENT TAMARA PRELETZ’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO QUASH PETITIONER’S DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS RE: BANK OF AMERICA; REQUEST FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF

MOTION FILED: 10/31/2025

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

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

RESPONDING PARTIES: Petitioners Jeffrey Preletz and Jennifer Santana Attorney: Jamie L. Ackerman, (949) 945-2080

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

23PR000646: IN THE MATTER OF: MICHAEL O PRELETZ 02/18/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other Motion to Quash Bank of America in Department 129

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

TENTATIVE RULING Respondent and Movant Tamara Preletz (“Respondent”) seeks to quash a deposition subpoena for business records from Bank of America, or alternatively for protective order limiting the scope of the subpoena, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 1985.3, 1985.6, 1987.1, and 2025.420(b). The motion is ruled on as follows.

Background

Petitioners are the children of Decedent Michael O. Preletz (“Decedent”). Respondent and Decedent were married from 2008 until Decedent’s death on January 3, 2023.

Prior to his death, Decedent executed various estate planning documents and amendments, as early as 1985. At issue in this matter is the amendment executed in 2021.

On June 30, 2023, Petitioners filed their petition to invalidate the 2021 trust amendment. The Petition was amended on August 8, 2024.

As part of ongoing discovery, on February 12, 2025, Petitioners issued a Deposition Subpoena for Production of Business Records re: Bank of America records from 1/1/2018 to the present. (Motion, 2:23-25; Declaration of Michael C. Murphy, Jr., Ex. 3, Attachment 3.) Petitioners indicate the subpoenaed records have already been produced in part. (Opposition, 3:13-14.)

Meet and confer efforts were conducted, and while extensions were agreed upon, and good faith efforts were made at resolution, the parties were unable to resolve the issues informally. (Motion, 13:13-15.)

Respondent objects to the subpoena pursuant to Civil Code sections 3294 and 3295 and on the

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23PR000646: IN THE MATTER OF: MICHAEL O PRELETZ 02/18/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other Motion to Quash Bank of America in Department 129

basis of privilege (Motion, 6:18-19). Respondent further seeks a protective order limiting the scope of the subpoena.

Motion to Quash “If a subpoena requires the production of books, documents, electronically stored information, or other things before a court the court, upon motion reasonably made by any person described in subdivision (b) may make an order quashing the subpoena entirely, modifying it, or directing compliance with it.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.1.)

Any consumer whose personal records are sought by a subpoena duces tecum and who is a party to the civil action in which the subpoena is served may bring a motion under Section 1987.1 to quash or modify the subpoena. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1985.3(g).)

Respondent indicates that the subpoena is improper under Civil Code sections 3294 and 3295 and argues that Petitioners are improperly seeking financial information to be pursued postjudgment. (Motion, 7:22-23.) Petitioners argue the requests are relevant to showing the nature and extent of Respondent’s authority and control over Decedent’s finances. (Opposition, 5:17- 20.) Petitioners further note that Civil Code sections 3294 and 3295 relate to punitive damages, not discovery relating to financial records.

The parties discuss Rawnsley v. Superior Ct. (1986) 183 Cal. App. 3d 86, 91, which relates to evidence pertaining to a defendant’s net worth. Rawnsley does not discuss a plaintiff’s right to financial records for purposes of determining lack of capacity, undue influence, or fraud. Rawnsley states that Civil Code 3295 allows a court to require a plaintiff to establish a prima facie right to recover punitive damages before any evidence of defendant's net worth may be introduced. (Id.)

The California Constitution expressly grants Californians a right of privacy. (Cal. Const., art. I, § 1.) The Court finds Respondent has established that the subpoenas implicate protected privacy interests, thus requiring Petitioners to demonstrate that the records are directly relevant to the causes of action. (Valley Bank of Nevada v. Super. Ct. (1975) 15 Cal.3d 652, 656; Britt v. Super. Ct. (1978) 20 Cal.3d 844, 859.) Petitioners seek financial records to determine the extent of Respondent’s purported management (or mismanagement) of decedent’s funds while allegedly suffering from mental decline. To the extent that Petitioners seek to obtain records that may tend to prove or disprove their claim of lack undue influence and fraud over various aspects of Decedent’s affairs prior to his death, the motion to quash is DENIED in part.

Motion for Protective Order The request for protective order, made in the alternative, is granted in part. The court, for good cause shown, may make any order that justice requires to protect any party from “unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression, or undue burden and expense.” (Code Civ. Proc., §

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23PR000646: IN THE MATTER OF: MICHAEL O PRELETZ 02/18/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other Motion to Quash Bank of America in Department 129

2025.420(b).)

Petitioners seek to invalidate the 2021 amendment to the trust based on lack of capacity, undue influence, and fraud. Although Petitioners do not seek to invalidate the trust amendments made in 2018, 2019, or 2020, they argue records from 2018 are relevant to demonstrate decedent’s alleged mental decline. (See, generally, Petition ¶¶ 15-18.) Because Petitioners have not demonstrated how records prior to 2021 will tend to prove or disprove their theories of undue influence or fraud, the Court finds good cause under Section 2025.420(b) to protect against undue burden relating to inquiries into the financial condition of Decedent and Respondent prior to 2021.

Further, Petitioners justify their request for financial records beyond decedent’s date of death as “potentially revealing assets, transfers, or financial arrangements affecting damages calculations.” This is improper under Petitioners’ own citation, Rawnsley, which acknowledges that “the plaintiff’s right to pretrial discovery of the defendant’s financial status is severely limited.” (Rawnsley v. Superior Court (1986) 183 Cal.App.3d 86, 91 [227 Cal.Rptr. 806].)

Thus, the motion for protective order is GRANTED in part. The production of documents based on the partial denials of the motion to quash requires the confidentiality of Respondent’s financial information. The documents may not be disclosed to any person outside of this litigation and only the last four digits of the account numbers may be revealed. All social security numbers on the records must be redacted.

The motion to quash is DENIED in part. The motion for protective order is GRANTED in part. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.420(b)(10), the scope the subpoena for Bank of America records issued February 12, 2025 is limited to January 1, 2021, the year of the alleged incapacity and influence over decedent’s affairs, to January 3, 2023, decedent’s date of death. The Court will sign the proposed order granting the motion in the alternative.

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