In the Matter of: The Catalano B. Trust, dated January 4, 1984

SUPERIOR COURT, STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA

Department 7 Honorable Daniel T. Nishigaya

DATE: May 13, 2026 TIME: 10:00

TO CONTEST A TENTATIVE RULING, YOU MUST CALL (408) 808-6856 BEFORE 4:00 P.M. ON THE DAY PRIOR TO THE HEARING. You must also inform all other sides to the issue before 4:00 P.M. the day prior to the hearing that you plan to contest the ruling. The Court will not hear argument, and the tentative ruling will be adopted if these notifications are not made. (Cal. Rule of Court 3.1308(a)(1); Civil Local Rule 8.D.)

LINE # CASE # CASE TITLE RULING LINE 1 22PR191805 (consolidated with 23PR194315)

22PR193527 In the Matter of: The Catalano B. Trust, dated January 4, 1984.

In the Matter of: The Rita P. Catalano Trust of 2000. Ctrl Click (or scroll down) on Line 1 for tentative ruling.

- oo0oo -

Calendar Line 1

INTRODUCTION Settlors Fred and Rita Catalano established the Fred Catalano and Rita P. Catalano Revocable Living Trust, dated January 4, 1984, and restated the trust in 1994. Fred passed away in August 1994.1 Thereafter, Rita made several changes to the trust, some of which changed the successor trustees. In 2000, Rita executed the Rita P. Catalano Trust, which was also amended several times. Docket 22PR191805 The case in docket 22PR191805 was initiated by Lisa Boyer (“Trustee”), purportedly the successor trustee of the Catalano B Trust, dated January 4, 1984, who filed an accounting and petition for settlement of the accounting.

Objector Regina Drysdale (“Objector”) filed an objection. The initial petition in docket 23PR194315 was filed by Objector, seeking instructions to declare a vacancy in the position of trustee. Docket 23PR194315 was consolidated into docket 22PR191805 on May 25, 2023. Objector filed a first amended petition for instructions in docket 22PR191805 on September 28, 2023. On May 3, 2024, Trustee filed a first amended petition for order to confirm trusteeship in the consolidated docket 22PR191805. Objector filed an objection to same on May 23 and May 29, 2024.

Objector filed an amended objection on September 9, 2025. On February 26, 2025, in consolidated docket 22PR191805, Trustee filed a petition for order enforcing no contest clause against Objector (“No Contest Petition”) based on the September 28, 2023 Petition for Instructions and the May 29, 2024 Objection to the First Amended Petition to Confirm Trusteeship. Docket 22PR193527 In docket 22PR193527, Trustee and her co-trustee Daniel Catalano (collectively, “Co- Trustees”) filed a petition entitled, Petition to Establish Estate’s Claim of Ownership to

1 Because several individuals involved in this case share the same last name, some of them will be referred to by their first names. No disrespect is intended.

Property, for order directing its transfer to estate and for related claims for: 1. Financial Elder Abuse, 2. Promissory Fraud.

3. Conversion 4. Accounting and 5. Declaratory Relief.” That petition alleged that Objector induced Rita to loan her approximately $450,000, failed to repay the loans, and made misrepresentations about same. Motions Before the Court Currently before the court in docket 22PR191805 is Objector’s motion to quash a subpoena directed to Larry Stewart (“Stewart”), who conducted a forensic examination of certain trust documents. Trustee opposed the motion and Objector filed a reply. Trustee has also filed a sur-reply.

Currently before the court in docket 22PR193527 is Trustee’s motion to compel further responses to certain special interrogatories and requests for production of documents served on Objector and production of the documents. Objector has opposed the motion and Trustee has filed a reply. DISCUSSION I. Motion to Quash in Docket 22PR191805 Objector moves to quash a subpoena directed to Stewart, who conducted a forensic examination of certain trust documents. A. Trustee’s Request for Judicial Notice Trustee requests judicial notice of multiple court documents in connection with her claims that the court has already ordered Objector to produce the documents sought by the subpoena and that Objector has placed Stewart’s opinion at issue by raising it in filings with the court.

The request is GRANTED pursuant to Evidence Code section 452, subdivision (d). B. Legal Background The court may, “upon motion reasonably made by a [party] ... make an order quashing [a] subpoena entirely, modifying it, or directing compliance with it upon those terms or conditions as the court shall declare, including protective orders.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.1, subds. (a) & (b)(1).)2 In addition, the court may make “any other order as may be appropriate

2 All further undesignated statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure.

to protect the [moving party] from unreasonable or oppressive demands,” including unreasonable violations of his or her right to privacy. (§ 1987.1, subd. (a).) The objecting party generally bears the burden of justifying any objections to the subpoena. (See Kirkland v. Superior Court (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 92, 98; Coy v. Superior Court of Contra Costa County (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220; Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Super. Ct. (2000) 22 Cal. 4th 245, 255.) C. Merits of the Motion Objector asserts that serving the subpoena on Stewart is premature because she has not yet designated Stewart as an expert and the parties have not yet exchanged expert information pursuant to section 2034.210.

She maintains that the date by which the parties must make the “exchange demand,” as she terms it, is June 8, 2026. Trustee maintains that the court has already ordered Objector to turn over the same information and that Objector has placed the information sought in the subpoena at issue by using it in support of her anti-SLAPP motion, which was granted. Section 2034.210 provides After the setting of the initial trial date for the action, any party may obtain discovery by demanding that all parties simultaneously exchange information concerning each other’s expert trial witnesses to the following extent: (a) Any party may demand a mutual and simultaneous exchange by all parties of a list containing the name and address of any natural person, including one who is a party, whose oral or deposition testimony in the form of an expert opinion any party expects to offer in evidence at the trial. (b) If any expert designated by a party under subdivision (a) is a party or an employee of a party, or has been retained by a party for the purpose of forming and expressing an opinion in anticipation of the litigation or in preparation for the trial of the action, the designation of that witness shall include or be accompanied by an expert witness declaration under Section 2034.260. (c) Any party may also include a demand for the mutual and simultaneous production for inspection and copying of all discoverable reports and writings, if any, made by any expert described in subdivision (b) in the course of preparing that expert’s opinion.

Section 2034.220 provides, “Any party may make a demand for an exchange of information concerning expert trial witnesses without leave of court. A party shall make this demand no later than the 10th day after the initial trial date has been set, or 70 days before that trial date, whichever is closer to the trial date.”

Trustee does not assert that the statutory scheme does not require an exchange demand to seek discovery from an expert. Instead, she maintains that the court has already ordered Objector to turn over the discovery sought in the subpoena and that Objector has placed the expert discovery at issue by relying on Stewart’s reports in connection with her anti-SLAPP motion. Trustee contends that the court has already ordered Objector to produce the records at issue via a written order filed April 21, 2023 and again on November 8, 2023.3 The April 21, 2023 order directed Objector to produced documents requested in Trustee’s requests for production without objection.

The November 8, 2023 order granted Trustee’s request for objection-free responses to requests for production of documents. The problem with Trustee’s presentation on this point is that she does not provide the requests for production of documents or identify the language of the requests such that the court can conclude that they would encompass the documents at issue in the instant motion. (See Quantum Cooking Concepts, Inc. v. LV Assocs., Inc. (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 927, 934 [stating that the trial court is not required to “comb the record and the law for factual and legal support that a party has failed to identify or provide”].)

The court has located the requests for production attached to Trustee’s counsel’s declaration, filed March 2, 2023, in support of her motion to compel. The requests seek documents supporting Objector’s objections to Trustee’s first account, filed January 21, 2022. The court is aware that Objector hired Stewart to provide an opinion regarding whether certain trust documents were forged and that she has made claims in documents filed with the court that certain trust documents are forged. But, the court would have to comb through the multiple objections to determine if that argument was made.

And, assuming that it is, not all documents responsive to the subpoena would support that proposition to the extent it was raised in the objections. Notably, the subpoena also seeks items such as Stewart’s billing records, that would not appear to be supportive of any objections based on forgery. In connection with her reply, Objector has produced Stewart’s report, which would be responsive to the document

3 The April 21, 2023 order is attached to Trustee’s request for judicial notice as Exhibit 3. The November 8, 2023 order is attached as Exhibit 4.

requests, assuming that the objections raise forgery as an issue. However, Trustee fails to explain how other documents requested in the subpoena would be responsive to the discovery requests. Accordingly, this argument is underdeveloped and the court rejects it.4 As to Trustee’s argument that Objector has placed the expert discovery at issue, the California Supreme Court has explained that a “person or entity seeking to discover privileged information can show waiver by demonstrating that the client has put the otherwise privileged communication directly at issue and that disclosure is essential for a fair adjudication of the action.” (S.

Cal. Gas Co. v. Public Utils. Com. (1990) 50 Cal.3d 31, 40.) In her declaration in support of her anti-SLAPP motion, filed September 30, 2025, Objector declared that she had retained the services of handwriting expert Larry Stewart, the Chief Forensic Scientist for Global Forensic Services.5 She explained that she submitted to him 20 trust documents and he concluded that some of them were highly likely to be forgeries. She provided a copy of Stewart’s January 10, 2023 report. Thereafter, Objector filed Stewart’s declaration on February 28, 2026 asserting that Stewart’s January 10, 2023 report contained an error as to the opinion of a specific document but his January 16, 2023 final report corrected that error.6 The court agrees with Trustee that Objector has placed Stewart’s work at issue such that she is entitled to the documents requested in the subpoena.

Notably, Objector makes no argument that any particular item would be outside the scope of what Trustee would be entitled to. Objector appears to contend in reply that she asserted the attorney work product privilege over the documents requested in the subpoena. But, it is not clear where she would have done so. The motion to quash makes no mention of work product, it was based solely on the argument that the demand exchange had not yet occurred, and Objector does not assert that she served an objection to the subpoena.

Failure to timely assert the work product privilege waives it. (See Deary v. Superior Court (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1072, 1079; Stadish v. Superior

4 This finding is without prejudice to Trustee making a motion to compel compliance with the court’s April 21, 2023 and November 8, 2023 orders. 5 The declaration is attached to Trustee’s request for judicial notice as Exhibit 1.

6 Stewart’s declaration is attached to Trustee’s request for judicial notice as Exhibit 2.

Court (1999) 71 Cal. App. 4th 1130, 1140-1141; Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1997) 59 Cal. App. 4th 263, 274.) The motion to quash is DENIED. Both parties request sanctions in connection with the instant motion. “Except as specified in subdivision (c), in making an order pursuant to motion made under subdivision (c) of Section 1987 or under Section 1987.1, the court may in its discretion award the amount of the reasonable expenses incurred in making or opposing the motion, including reasonable attorney’s fees, if the court finds the motion was made or opposed in bad faith or without substantial justification or that one or more of the requirements of the subpoena was oppressive.” (Code Civ.

Proc., § 1987.2, subd. (a).) As Objector did not prevail, her request for sanctions is DENIED. Trustee requests her fees but she does not state the amount of the fees requested. Accordingly, her request is DENIED without prejudice to making a noticed motion for same. II. Motion to Compel in Docket 22PR193527 Co-Trustees move to compel Objector to provide further responses to special interrogatories, set three, numbers 10 through 31 and requests for production of documents, set five, numbers 19 through 35 and production of the requested documents.

A. Legal Background i. Interrogatories A responding party must provide non-evasive answers to interrogatories that are “as complete and straightforward...to the extent possible,” and, if after a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information they still cannot respond fully to an interrogatory, the responding party must so state in its response. (§ 2030.220.) If the responding party provides incomplete or evasive answers, or objections without merit, the propounding party’s remedy is to seek a court order compelling a further response to the interrogatories. (§ 2030.300, subd. (a).) ii.

Requests for Production of Documents A responding party to an inspection demand must respond separately to each item in the demand by stating one of the following: (1) an agreement to comply, (2) a representation of