Bear Mountain Development Company, LLC vs. State of California

34-2021-00303948-CU-BC-GDS: Bear Mountain Development Company, LLC vs. State of California 04/30/2026 Hearing on Motion for Protective Order in Department 16C

Tentative Ruling

NOTICE:

The Sacramento Superior Court has transitioned operations from the Gordon D. Schaber and Hall of Justice buildings to the new Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye Courthouse through a phased move plan beginning on April 13, 2026. Visit the court’s website at www.saccourt.ca.gov for the most current and up to date information regarding the transition. The physical and mailing address of the new downtown courthouse is:

Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye Courthouse 500 G Street Sacramento, CA 95814

Please take notice, effective April 13, 2026, Department 54 has moved to Department 16C at the Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye Courthouse. The Honorable Christopher E. Krueger remains presiding over all Home Court proceedings, including Case Management and Law & Motion. All hearings currently scheduled or reserved after the effective date shall remain in place and will be heard in Department 16C.

Hon. Christopher E. Krueger Department 16C 916-874-7848

Tentative Ruling

Cross-Complainant the State of California by and through the Department of General Services’ (“DGS”) motion for protective order is DENIED.

On February 23, 2026, DGS filed a motion for protective order with a hearing date of September 8, 2026. On February 24th, DGS filed an ex parte application to advance hearing and shorten time on the motion. Attached to counsel’s declaration was a copy of the motion filed on February 23rd. The Court granted the ex-parte application, advancing the hearing to today’s date. The ex parte order stated, in part, “serve any opposition and reply by CCP sec. 1005(b) deadlines.” (Ex Parte Order, February 25, 2026.)

On April 8th, DGS filed and purportedly personally served Cross-Defendant Bear Mountain Development Company LLC (“Bear Mountain”) with an amended notice of motion and amended motion. DGS claimed that the amended motion was proper because it “provides notice of the new hearing date and incorporates additional updates and corrections. The grounds for this Amended Motion are otherwise the same as the original Motion.” (Amended Notice of Motion,

34-2021-00303948-CU-BC-GDS: Bear Mountain Development Company, LLC vs. State of California 04/30/2026 Hearing on Motion for Protective Order in Department 16C

3:3-6.)

Bear Mountain argues in opposition that the Court should not consider the amended motion because the ex parte order did grant DGS leave to file any amended moving papers, and that the amended motion includes “numerous other changes . . . going far beyond simply alerting the parties about the new hearing date.” (Bear Mountain’s Opposition to Amended Motion for Protective Order.) According to Bear Mountain, pursuant to the ex parte order, it “operated on the premise that the moving papers already served by the State were the operative papers and commenced preparing an opposition to those original motion papers.” (Opposition, 2:21-23.) It adds that:

[s]ince the Court set the date and time of the advanced hearing in an Order that was served on all parties, there was no need for the State to serve its amended notice for that purpose. In any case, if that was the State’s reason, it could have been accomplished simply by serving notice of the new date and time of the hearing. This leads to the conclusion that the State’s true motive was to make substantive changes to its earlier papers after having induced Bear Mountain into believing that it should prepare a response to its original motion papers.

(Opposition, 3:9-15.)

DGS’ reply does not address Bear Mountain’s argument that the Court did not grant DGS leave to file an amended motion.

The filing of the amended motion has now required that the Court expend time to compare the original motion and the amended motion. The Court notes that the table of authorities in the original motion is entirely inaccurate. Upon further comparison of the actual contents of two memorandum of points and authorities, the Court discovered that the amended motion cites additional case authority that were not cited in the original motion. The text of the amended motion is also much different from the original motion, including new sections and significantly re-drafting other sections. To the extent the amended motion withdrew portions of the originally requested protective order and requested sanctions in the notice of motion, DGS should have simply filed an amended notice of motion rather than an amended motion. The Court’s ex parte order did not grant DGS leave to file an amended motion.

Accordingly, the motion is DENIED.

DGS’ request for monetary sanction is DENIED.

The Court need not rule on Bear Mountain's objection to DGS' reply and evidence because it was not material to the Court's disposition of the motion.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2021-00303948-CU-BC-GDS: Bear Mountain Development Company, LLC vs. State of California 04/30/2026 Hearing on Motion for Protective Order in Department 16C

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

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 16C Zoom Link is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16030877014 To appear on Zoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID 16030877014. 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/courtreporters/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 04/30/2026 Hearing on Motion for Protective Order in Department 16C

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.