Bear Mountain Development Company, LLC vs. State of California

34-2021-00303948-CU-BC-GDS: Bear Mountain Development Company, LLC vs. State of California 10/16/2025 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set Four in Department 54

Tentative Ruling

Cross-defendant Bear Mountain Development Company, LLC’s (“Bear Mountain”) motion to compel cross-complainant The State of California (the “State”) to serve verified further responses to Bear Mountain’s Special Interrogatories, Set Four, numbers 270-275, 279-281, 287, 290, 305, 308, 318, 322, 376 (erroneously numbered 375), and 377 (erroneously numbered 376) is ruled upon as follows.

This action was initiated by Bear Mountain against the State for breach of contract. The State filed a Cross-Complaint on September 7, 2022, against Bear Mountain, and an Amended Cross-Complaint on June 6, 2025, alleging breach of contract, promissory estoppel, fraud, and restitution/unjust enrichment. The underlying dispute relates to a purchase order by the State at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic for PPE from Bear Mountain. The State alleges that Bear Mountain failed to perform under the agreement by not providing the ordered PPE on the agreed upon schedule.

The State alleges that it entered several different contracts to procure PPE to substitute for the PPE due under the contract and that it was forced to pay significantly higher prices for the substitute PPE. The State prays for damages in an amount of at least $43 million. The State also seeks to recover restitution related the payment of $7 million for PPE delivered under the contract before the termination.

The Court adjudicated Bear Mountain’s breach of contract action in the State’s favor on March 1, 2024, by granting the State’s motion for summary judgment. Now, only the State’s Amended Cross-Complaint remains at issue, which is scheduled for trial on March 24, 2026.

Bear Mountain served the subject Special Interrogatories on July 3, 2025. (Declaration of Scott H. Carr (“Carr Decl.”), ¶ 1, Ex. 1.) Bear Mountain served objections and responses on August 19, 2025. (Carr Decl. ¶ 2, Ex. 2.)

Bear Mountain then sent a meet-and-confer letter dated September 4, 2025. (Carr Decl. ¶ 3, Ex. 3.) The State responded on September 15, 2025. (Carr Decl., ¶ 4, Ex. 4.) Bear Mountain then filed this motion four days later on September 19, 2025.

The State contends Bear Mountain did not meet and confer in good faith. To that end, the State notes that Bear Mountain’s one and only meet-and-confer letter did not address or discuss any of the State’s asserted objections. Indeed, Bear Mountain’s letter only asserted that the State’s responses improperly reframed the questions when providing a response and demanded further responses by September 11, 2025, or a motion to compel would be brought.

34-2021-00303948-CU-BC-GDS: Bear Mountain Development Company, LLC vs. State of California 10/16/2025 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set Four in Department 54

The State noted Bear Mountain’s failure to address its objections, stating:

“Regarding DGS’s responses to the special interrogatories identified in your letter, DGS believes its responses are proper for the reasons stated in its objections, which your letter does not address. As we have previously explained, a letter that merely summarizes the requests and responses without considering DGS’s objections is not conducive to obtaining an informal resolution. (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2016.040; Townsend v. Superior Court (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1431, 1439.) While DGS is open to reconsidering its position, based on your letter, DGS does not believe that any further responses are warranted.

Please let me know if there is anything further you would like to discuss.”

(Carr Decl., ¶ 4, Ex. 4.)

Bear Mountain did not respond and, instead, filed this instant motion to compel.

The foregoing does not constitute a good faith attempt to meet and confer prior to filing this motion, Bear Mountain having failed to address any of the State’s asserted objections even after being notified of that failure. 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.” (Townsend v. Superior Court (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1431, 1438.) The parties must attempt to talk the matter over, compare their views, consult, and deliberate. (Clement v.

Alegre (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 1277, 1294.) The purpose of the meet and confer requirement is to bridge the gap between the parties – to force lawyers to reexamine their positions, and to narrow their discovery disputes to the irreducible minimum, before calling upon the court to resolve the matter. (Stewart v. Colonial Western Agency, Inc. (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1006, 1016.)

Bear Mountain’s motion is DENIED for failure to meet and confer.

The State’s request for monetary sanctions against Bear Mountain in the amount of $16,872 is GRANTED, but in the reduced amount of $1,140 (representing five hours of attorney time at the rate of $228 per hour). Sanctions to be paid no later than November 17, 2025, and, if not paid by that date, the State may prepare for the Court’s signature a formal order granting the sanctions, which may then be enforced as a separate judgment. (Newland v. Superior Court (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 608, 615.)

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

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2021-00303948-CU-BC-GDS: Bear Mountain Development Company, LLC vs. State of California 10/16/2025 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set Four in Department 54

of Court, Rule 3.1312, or further notice is required.

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-ca-gov.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.

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