Bear Mountain Development Company, LLC vs. State of California

34-2021-00303948-CU-BC-GDS: Bear Mountain Development Company, LLC vs. State of California 09/30/2025 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set Two in Department 54

Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant Bear Mountain Development Company, LLC’s (“Bear Mountain”) motion to compel Defendant and Cross-Complainant Defendant State of California by and through Department of General Services’ (“DGS”) further responses to Special Interrogatories (set two) Nos. 88, 91, 93, 94, 102, 103, 105, 106, 109, 110, 112, 113, 116, 117, 119, 120, 123, 124, 126, 127, 130, 131, 133, 134, 137, 138, 140, 141, 144, 145, 147, 148, 151, 152, 154, 155, 158, 159, 161, 162, 165, 166, 168, 169, 172, 173, 175, 176, 179, 180, 182, 183, 186, 187, 189, 190, 193, 194, 196, 197, 200, 201, 203, 204, 207, 208, 210, 211, 214, 215, 217, 218, 221, 222, 224, 225, 228, 229, 231, 232, 235, 236, 238, 239, 242, 243, 245, 246, 249, 250, 252, 253, 256, 257 is continued November 13, 2025 for the parties to resume their meet-and-confer efforts.

Having reviewed the moving and opposing papers, and the numerous discovery requests that the parties dispute, it is apparent to the court that counsel must engage further in the meet-and-confer process in good faith. 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, the meet-and-confer efforts shall be conducted either in person or via telephone, 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) a cumulative or duplicative objection is only valid if the discovery is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative; (2) the invocation of Code of Section 2030.230 is only proper where the answer would necessitate the preparation or the making of a compilation, abstract, audit, or summary of or from the documents of the party to whom the interrogatory is directed, and if the burden or expense of preparing or making it would be substantially the same for the party propounding the interrogatory as for the responding party, and the specification of documents must be in sufficient detail to permit the propounding party to locate and to identify, as readily as the responding party can, the documents from which the answer may be ascertained; (3) terms which DGS used in its own cross-complaint are not vague or ambiguous; (4) as DGS is no longer seeking attorneys’ fees and litigation costs, the interrogatories requesting information regarding the same are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; (5) DGS’ use of the term “include” prior to identifying certain witnesses is evasive as to whether other individuals not identified also exist.

Counsel shall meet and confer in person, by telephone or by video conference no later than October 10, 2025. After thoroughly meeting and conferring in an attempt to resolve each and every discovery request that the motion currently encompasses, and no later than October 27, 2025, 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

34-2021-00303948-CU-BC-GDS: Bear Mountain Development Company, LLC vs. State of California 09/30/2025 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set Two in Department 54

forth in the joint statement their respective positions, citing the relevant facts and authorities. Boilerplate or cut-and-paste arguments are strongly discouraged.

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 53/54 Zoom Link is https://saccourt-cagov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept53.54 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 4650 6749. 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.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2021-00303948-CU-BC-GDS: Bear Mountain Development Company, LLC vs. State of California 09/30/2025 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set Two in Department 54

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.