PINSON vs STINEMAN, et al.

25CV012710: PINSON vs STINEMAN, et al. 08/17/2026 Hearing on Motion for Protective Order in Department 8C

Tentative Ruling

NOTICE:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that any oral arguments regarding this tentative ruling will be heard at 1:30 p.m. in Department 8C in the Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye Courthouse at 500 G Street, Sacramento, CA, the Hon. Richard C. Miadich presiding.

Any party who wishes to contest the tentative ruling below must:

(1) request a hearing by calling the Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line for Department 8C at (916) 874-8380, by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the noticed hearing date, and leave a voicemail 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 they have notified the opposing party of their intention to appear; and

(2) advise the opposing party of the location and time of hearing pursuant to Local Rule 1.06.

If a hearing is not requested by 4:00 p.m. on the Court day before the noticed hearing date, the tentative ruling will become the final order of the Court.

If a hearing is requested, the Court prefers in-person attendance by the parties. However, parties may appear by Zoom unless the Court specifically orders in-person attendance. Parties choosing to appear by Zoom are reminded, however, that a Zoom appearance is still a formal appearance before the Court. Parties appearing via Zoom should do so from a quiet location, free from undue distractions, and wear attire suitable for an in-person court appearance.

The parties may join the Zoom session for hearing on the tentative ruling by audio and/or video through the following link:

https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16039062174

SIP Address:

16039062174@sip.zoomgov.com

(833) 568-8864

25CV012710: PINSON vs STINEMAN, et al. 08/17/2026 Hearing on Motion for Protective Order in Department 8C

ID: 16039062174

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.

TENTATIVE RULING

***NOTICE: EFFECTIVE APRIL 13, 2026, THIS DEPARTMENT HAS MOVED TO THE TANI G. CANTIL-SAKAUYE COURTHOUSE LOCATED AT 500 G STREET SACRAMENTO, CA. ALL MOTIONS NOTICED FOR DEPARTMENT 28 WILL BE HEARD IN DEPARTMENT 8C OF THE NEW COURTHOUSE. ALL PAPERS FOR THIS DEPARTMENT MUST BE FILED AT THIS NEW LOCATION AND WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED AT THE HALL OF JUSTICE. ALL HEARINGS WILL TAKE PLACE AT THIS NEW LOCATION***

Defendant/Cross-Complainant Courtney Anne Stineman’s (“Defendant”) motion for protective order is UNOPPOSED and ruled upon as follows.

The notice of motion does not provide notice of the Court’s tentative ruling system, as required by Local Rule 1.06. Moving counsel is directed to contact opposing counsel and advise of Local Rule 1.06 and the Court’s tentative ruling procedure and the manner to request a hearing. If moving counsel is unable to contact opposing counsel prior to the hearing, moving counsel is ordered to appear at the hearing by Zoom or in person.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV012710: PINSON vs STINEMAN, et al. 08/17/2026 Hearing on Motion for Protective Order in Department 8C

Defendant is admonished for filing an oversized memorandum without leave of court. An opening memorandum for a non-summary judgment motion shall not exceed 15 pages. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1113(d).)

Plaintiff Larry Ray Pinson (“Plaintiff”) filed this personal injury action on May 29, 2025. The Complaint also names Corey Allen Nelsen as a defendant. Mr. Nelsen has not responded to the Complaint. Defendant has filed a Cross-Complaint against Mr. Nelsen, and Mr. Nelsen has also not responded to the Cross-Complaint at this time.

On February 3, 2026, Plaintiff served Defendant with Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories, Set Four (Nos. 141-170); Plaintiff’s Requests for Admission, Set Four (Nos. 141-162); and Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of Documents, Set Four (Nos. 149-158). The discovery was served along with a declaration from Plaintiff’s counsel stating the alleged need for the additional discovery. (See Hanna Decl., Exh. E.) Defendant contends that this discovery is vague and ambiguous, overbroad and unduly burdensome, and duplicative of prior requests.

Defendant takes particular issue with certain requests related to an alleged sworn statement from a thirdparty witness Plaintiff’s counsel claims to have obtained that places Defendant at fault for the subject collision, but which Plaintiff has not provided to Defendant. On February 23, 2026, Defendant’s counsel sent meet and confer correspondence to Plaintiff’s counsel stating that if the requests were not withdrawn, Defendant would be moving for a protective order and to appoint a discovery referee.

The parties exchanged further correspondence over the next several days, but no resolution was reached, and Defendant filed this motion on March 6, 2026.

Defendant’s notice of motion states that Defendant seeks “an order (1) excusing defendant from answering Plaintiff’s Discovery Requests Set Four, (2) finding that the number of discovery requests is unwarranted and constitutes an undue burden and expense and prohibiting plaintiff from propounding any further discovery without prior Court approval, (3) prohibiting plaintiff from requesting the production of documents that are privileged, and (4) appointing a discovery referee.” (Notice, p. 2:2-6.)

Defendant’s moving papers include a proposed order titled, “[Proposed] Order Granting Defendant Courtny Anne Stineman’s Motion for Protective Order of Plaintiff’s Fourth Set of Discovery Requests and a Discovery Referee.” The proposed order states that Defendant’s responses to Plaintiff’s “Fourth Set of Discovery Requests are protected by a Protective Order,” and that “[a] Discovery Referee is granted for the duration of this matter to oversee all discovery in this matter moving forward until trial.” (Proposed Order, p. 2:4-7.)

There is no separate proposed protective order.

The Court construes Plaintiff’s failure to oppose the motion as a concession on the merits, in part. (D.I. Chadbourne, Inc. v. Superior Court (1964) 60 Cal.2d 723, 728, fn. 4 [where nonmoving party fails to oppose a ground for a motion “it is assumed that [nonmoving party]

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV012710: PINSON vs STINEMAN, et al. 08/17/2026 Hearing on Motion for Protective Order in Department 8C

concedes” that ground].)

With respect to Plaintiff’s fourth sets of special interrogatories, requests for admission, and requests for production of documents served on February 3, 2026, Defendant’s motion is GRANTED such that Defendant is excused from serving responses to these discovery sets. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.090(b)(1); 2031.060(b)(1); 2033.080(b)(1).) However, Defendant’s motion is DENIED with respect to Defendant’s request for an order prohibiting Plaintiff from serving further discovery without Court approval and prohibiting Plaintiff from requesting privileged documents.

These terms are not listed as topics that may be included in the protective order statutes, and while the lists of topics in those statutes are nonexhaustive, the Court finds that the requested terms are overbroad (requiring Plaintiff to obtain Court approval to propound further discovery) and illusory (prohibiting Plaintiff from requesting privileged documents).

With respect to Defendant’s request for the appointment of a discovery referee, Defendant’s motion is DENIED. Defendant’s proposed order states that Defendant seeks the appointment of a discovery referee “to oversee all discovery in this matter moving forward until trial.” (Proposed Order, p. 2:6-7.) This is vague and overbroad, and appointing a referee with such authority would violate Code of Civil Procedure section 639(a)(5). To the extent Defendant intended “all discovery” to mean all discovery motions and disagreements, Defendant has not established that appointment of a referee for such purposes is necessary as required. (See Code Civ. Proc. § 639(a)(5); see also Taggares v. Superior Court (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 94, 105-106.) The Court notes that the present motion is the first discovery motion that has been filed in this case.

Defendant’s request for sanctions is DENIED since the motion is unopposed, and the Court declines to impose sanctions pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030.

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1019.5; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1312.)