Sean Michael Pelton vs. AT&T Corporation and it’s affiliate companies

34-2023-00333371-CU-MC-GDS: Sean Michael Pelton vs. AT&T Corporation and it's affiliate companies 2700 Watt Ave. 95821 04/22/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses to Plaintiff's Request for Production (CCP 2031.300) in Department 8D

Tentative Ruling

NOTICE: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to “Public Notice – Civil Division – Wednesday Law and Motion Calendar” any oral arguments regarding this tentative ruling will be heard in Department 8D, located at 500 G Street, Sacramento, CA, the Hon. Julie G. Yap presiding. Should argument be requested by either party, the requesting party 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, request the hearing, and notify the opposing party of the location and time of hearing pursuant to Local Rule 1.06.

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.

The Court encourages parties to appear remotely for the hearing on the tentative ruling through the Court’s Zoom Application. But, any party wishing to appear in person may do so, provided that party notifies the Court by 4:00 the Court day before the hearing. 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/16113421868 SIP Address: 16113421868@sip.zoomgov.com (833) 568-8864 ID: 16113421868 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

34-2023-00333371-CU-MC-GDS: Sean Michael Pelton vs. AT&T Corporation and it's affiliate companies 2700 Watt Ave. 95821 04/22/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses to Plaintiff's Request for Production (CCP 2031.300) in Department 8D

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

This matter was continued from April 8, 2026 for purposes of oral argument only. The original tentative ruling is republished below.

Appearance will be by ZOOM. To appear on Zoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the following Zoom ID: 161 1342 1868.

***NOTICE: EFFECTIVE APRIL 13, 2026, THIS DEPARTMENT HAS MOVED TO THE TANI G. CANTIL-SAKAUYE COURTHOUSE LOCATED AT 500 G. ST. SACRAMENTO, CA. ALL MOTIONS NOTICED FOR DEPARTMENT 25 WILL BE HEARD IN DEPARTMENT 8D 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****

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff Sean Michael Pelton’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production from Defendant AT&T Corporation (“Defendant”) is ruled upon as follows.

Factual Background

Plaintiff served the at issue discovery requests on December 2, 2024. (Davis Decl., ¶ 2.) Defendant served responses on January 6, 2025. (Davis Decl., ¶ 3.) Defendant served supplemental responses on June 27, 2025. (Davis Decl., ¶ 4.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2023-00333371-CU-MC-GDS: Sean Michael Pelton vs. AT&T Corporation and it's affiliate companies 2700 Watt Ave. 95821 04/22/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses to Plaintiff's Request for Production (CCP 2031.300) in Department 8D

Plaintiff now moves to compel further responses to request for production nos. 1-6, on the ground that Defendant’s supplemental responses are insufficient. Defendant opposes.

Requests at Issue

Request for Production No. 1: Provide copies of all INVOICES which RELATE TO the converters stolen from the Jackson, Ca. AT&T yard.

Request for Production No. 2: Provide copies of all RECIEPTS which RELATE TO the catalytic converters stolen from the Jackson, Ca. AT&T yard.

Request for Production No. 3: Provide copies of all DOCUMENTS used to verify the facts asserted in the 'Be On The Lookout' flyer attached to the FAC that Plaintiff was a suspect in 43 similar crimes at the time the 'Be On The Lookout' flyer was created.

Request for Production No. 4: Provide copies of all DOCUMENTS which AT&T relied upon to prove the assertion that Plaintiff had stolen 634 catalytic converters at the time the 'Be On The Lookout' flyer attached to the FAC, was created.

Request for Production No. 5: Provide copies of all DOCUMENTS which AT&T relied upon to prove the assertion “Known losses attributable to Pelton are $1,119,600” as is stated on the the 'Be On The Lookout' flyer attached to the FAC.

Request for Production No. 6: Provide copies of all DOCUMENTS proving that Plaintiff had been charged in the specific cases listed on the 'Be On the Lookout' flyer which is attached to the FAC.

Responses

Defendant further identifies the same documents as responsive to each request.

CA Cat theft Trucks with labor: PBTC00001 - PBTC00028 AT&T Catalytic Converter Thefts Updated: PBTC00029 - PBTC00035 AT&T Vehicles: PBTC00036 AT&T Vehicles – Cat Theft Jackson Revised 6-13-2022: PBTC00037 AT&T vehicles page 1077: PBTC00038

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2023-00333371-CU-MC-GDS: Sean Michael Pelton vs. AT&T Corporation and it's affiliate companies 2700 Watt Ave. 95821 04/22/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses to Plaintiff's Request for Production (CCP 2031.300) in Department 8D

Catalytic Converter thefts updated: PBTC00039 - PBTC00041 Jackson cats: PBTC00042 Pelton BOLO reviseD 10-21-2020: PBTC00043 - PBTC00045 Pelton prosecution – Tulare County: PBTC00046 - PBTC00048 Pelton Fresno County Court Records: PBTC00049 - PBTC00064 Riensch Subpoena: PBTC00065 - PBTC00066 Maps SKM_36822011809430: PBTC00067 - PBTC00076 Maps SKM_36822011809431: PBTC00077 - PBTC00085

Defendant further notes that there are “25 Videos Included on the Enclosed Flash Drive” in response to request nos. 4, 5, and 6.

The Court notes that Defendant’s responses do not comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.220, which states:

A statement that the party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling has been directed will comply with the particular demand shall state that the production, inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, and related activity demanded, will be allowed either in whole or in part, and that all documents or things in the demanded category that are in the possession, custody, or control of that party and to which no objection is being made will be included in the production. (Emphasis added.)

Defendant’s responses fail to state whether Defendant is responding in whole or in part to each request and further fails to state that the identified documents constitute all responsive documents in Defendant’s possession, custody, or control.

The Court will GRANT Plaintiff’s motion to compel as to each request, as Defendant must provide code-compliant responses.

Objections

Defendant responds to each of the above requests similarly, objecting on the grounds of vague and ambiguous, attorney-client privilege, attorney work product doctrine, relevance, “assumes facts not in evidence,” seeks premature disclosure of expert opinion, calls for a legal conclusion, burdensome, harassing, and objecting to certain

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2023-00333371-CU-MC-GDS: Sean Michael Pelton vs. AT&T Corporation and it's affiliate companies 2700 Watt Ave. 95821 04/22/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses to Plaintiff's Request for Production (CCP 2031.300) in Department 8D

terms in each request.

To the extent that Defendant is withholding responsive documents on the basis of attorney-client privilege, attorney work product doctrine, or that the request seeks premature disclosure of expert opinion, it must produce a privilege log.

As the party resisting discovery, Defendant has the burden to justify objections. (Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255 citing Coy v. Superior Court (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220-221.) However, Plaintiff must still place the objections at issue by identifying which specific objections are being challenged. Plaintiff’s memorandum of points and authorities provides the only challenge to the objections raised by Defendant, arguing that the requests are relevant to the instant action, in particular given the liberal standard of relevancy for the purposes of discovery.

Therefore, the burden shifts to Defendant to justify its relevance objection. In response, Defendant argues that it “stands by its objections,” and that has produced further documents as trial exhibits. Defendant argues that “Thus, the requested documents have been produced to Plaintiff, and the recently acquired documents have been in his possession since January.”

The Court notes that the motion is not rendered moot by the service of additional responsive documents. Code of Civil Procedure section 1005.5 specifically provides that a motion is deemed made at the time it is filed and served. Further, Defendant has made no further supplemental response to requests for production, stating that all responsive documents have now been produced. Therefore, the service of additional documents has no bearing on the results of the instant motion. The Court is concerned by the fact that Defendant failed to produce documents responsive to Plaintiff’s discovery requests until the time at which it included those documents in its trial exhibit book.

Defendant makes no argument that it did not possess these documents prior to the time they were produced. Rather, it appears to the Court that Defendant withheld certain exhibits until producing them on the eve of trial.

Regardless, Defendant makes no attempt to justify its objection of relevance. Therefore, Defendant fails to meet its burden to resist a motion to compel further responses. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to compel is GRANTED.

Discussion

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2023-00333371-CU-MC-GDS: Sean Michael Pelton vs. AT&T Corporation and it's affiliate companies 2700 Watt Ave. 95821 04/22/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses to Plaintiff's Request for Production (CCP 2031.300) in Department 8D

Plaintiff’s motion to compel is GRANTED, as set forth above. Defendant shall serve verified, amended responses by no later than May 6, 2026.

The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312 or further notice is required.