VIERRA, et al. vs RINDLE RANCH, et al.

24CV017136: VIERRA, et al. vs RINDLE RANCH, et al. 08/27/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Defendant's Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set Two in Department 16D

Tentative Ruling

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 Department 16D Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-3056 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 16D Zoom Link is https://saccourt-cagov.zoomgov.com/j/16146506749 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 on the Court Reporter Services webpage available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://saccourt.ca.gov/general-information/court-reporter-servicestranscripts. Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://saccourt.ca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/227/639084034465370000.

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.

24CV017136: VIERRA, et al. vs RINDLE RANCH, et al. 08/27/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Defendant's Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set Two in Department 16D

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.

*** EFFECTIVE APRIL 13, 2026, THIS DEPARTMENT HAS MOVED TO THE TANI G. CANTIL-SAKAUYE COURTHOUSE LOCATED AT 500 G STREET IN SACRAMENTO, CA 95814. ALL HEARINGS NOTICED FOR DEPARTMENT 53 WILL BE HEARD IN DEPARTMENT 16D OF THE NEW COURTHOUSE. ***

TENTATIVE RULING: Plaintiffs Wade and Kari Vierra’s motion to compel Defendants 29th Street Management IV, LLC and 29SC Arcade LP’s further responses to request for production (set two) is continued on the Court’s own motion to October 1, 2026 at 1:30 p.m. in this department.

On June 25, 2026, this Court continued the instant motion to today’s date for further meet-and-confer efforts related to the subject discovery. The parties were ordered to file a joint declaration (meaning a declaration drafted cooperatively by both counsel) detailing the specific meet and confer efforts conducted by the parties, including the dates and lengths of such efforts, and clearly indicating which discovery issues have been resolved, and which issues (if any) remain unresolved, and why. The declaration was to be filed no later than August 13, 2026. The Court made clear that the meet-andconfer efforts shall be conducted in person, by telephone or by video conference as required by CCP § 2016.040.

On August 13, 2026, Plaintiffs’ counsel filed a declaration detailing the parties meetand-confer efforts. Plaintiffs’ counsel indicated that only written correspondence was exchanged between the parties and that no in person, by telephone or by video conference despite Plaintiffs’ counsel’s attempts to do so. Plaintiffs’ counsel also indicated that Defendants’ counsel stated on August 12, 2026, that they were substituting out as Defendants’ counsel of record but did not identify replacement counsel. No joint declaration has been filed as ordered by the Court.

Given that the parties have failed to not only conduct the further meet-and-confer efforts in person, by telephone or by video conference as required by CCP § 2016.040 and as previously ordered by the Court, and to file the Court ordered joint declaration, the matter must be continued. Notably, no substitution of counsel has been filed and Defendants’ counsel remains counsel of record. Further, the fact that Defendants’

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV017136: VIERRA, et al. vs RINDLE RANCH, et al. 08/27/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Defendant's Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set Two in Department 16D

counsel may intend to substitute out as counsel of record, such intention did not relieve them of the obligation to comply with this Court’s June 25, 2026 order regarding the further meet-and-confer efforts.

The parties are once again ordered to engage in further meet-and-confer efforts. The Court expects the parties to engage in extensive, focused and directed meet and confer efforts regarding all of the issues raised in the motion in light of the Court’s May 13, 2026 Order. The parties are directed to commence the meet and confer efforts forthwith. No later than September 17, 2026, counsel for the parties shall file a joint declaration (meaning a declaration drafted cooperatively by both counsel) detailing the specific meet and confer efforts conducted by the parties, including the dates and lengths of such efforts, and clearly indicating which discovery issues have been resolved, and which issues (if any) remain unresolved, and why. The meet-and-confer efforts shall be conducted in person, by telephone or by video conference as required by CCP § 2016.040.

The parties are reminded that the “very purpose of an order to meet and confer is to obtain a negotiated resolution of a discovery dispute without having to expend judicial time to sort out which party is correct and what relief shall be granted. What the court seeks is an agreement by the parties which resolves the dispute.” (Young v. Rosenthal (1989) 212 Cal.App.3d 96, 117.) The Court will decide Plaintiffs’ request for monetary sanctions in part based on the joint declaration.

If the continued hearing date is not convenient, or if the parties believe that they will need additional time to meet and confer, counsel may meet and confer on a later hearing date and inform the clerk of the same no later than 4:00 p.m. on August 26, 2026.

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1312 or further notice is required.