MOHAMMAD ZAMIRI LIVING TRUST

24PR002924: MOHAMMAD ZAMIRI LIVING TRUST 07/01/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other Motion to Compel the Deposition of Azar Ghafouri in Department 126

Tentative Ruling

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION OF FARAH ZAMIRI TO COMPEL THE DEPOSITION OF AZAR GHAFOURI ZAMIRI AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS

Filed: 4/20/2026

Re: The Mohammad Zamiri Living Trust dated July 19, 2022.

Moving Party: Petitioner/Co-Trustee Farah Zamiri Attorney: Tyson Hubbard, (916) 444-1000

Responding Party: Surviving Spouse Azar Zamiri Attorney: Dan Near, (916) 987-0808

NOTICE: Pursuant to Local Rule 1.06 (A), the court will make a tentative ruling on the merits of this matter by 2:00 p.m., the court day before the hearing. The complete text of the tentative ruling may be downloaded off the court’s website. If the party does not have online access, they may call the dedicated phone number for the Probate Department at (916) 875-2526 between the hours of 2:00 p.m. and 4:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing and receive the tentative ruling. If you do not call the court and the opposing party by 4:00 p.m. the court day before the hearing, no hearing will be held.

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 126 Zoom Link is https://saccourt-cagov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept126 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 160 5926 9604. 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 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

24PR002924: MOHAMMAD ZAMIRI LIVING TRUST 07/01/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other Motion to Compel the Deposition of Azar Ghafouri in Department 126

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 forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

TENTATIVE RULING Petitioner and Movant Farah Zamiri (“Petitioner”) seeks to compel deposition of Respondent and surviving spouse Azar Zamiri (“Respondent”). The opposed motion is GRANTED as follows.

Petitioner filed a Petition for Instructions on October 3, 2024, seeking confirmation of ownership of various shares of a corporation, and compelling execution of documents that would confirm the sale of the corporation in question. Petitioner filed a Petition for Instructions on October 3, 2024, seeking confirmation of ownership of various shares of a corporation, and compelling execution of documents that would confirm the sale of the corporation in question. A second petition for instructions was filed the same day, seeking determination of ownership of various real property assets allegedly held in trust.

After several unsuccessful attempts to coordinate a date, time, and place to depose Respondent, Petitioner served a deposition notice of Respondent on Respondent’s counsel on March 20, 2026. (Memorandum of Points and Authorities [“MPA”], 2:13-24; Declaration of Stephanie Steevie [“Steevie” Decl.], ¶ 7, Exhibit 3.) Respondent and Respondent’s counsel did not object or attend the deposition. (MPA, 2:26-27, 3:8.) Petitioner’s counsel asserts that informal meet and confer efforts to resolve the matter prior to the filing of this motion were unsuccessful. (MPA, 4:15-17.) Petitioner initially sought sanctions totaling $10,369. (MPA, 6:22-23.) Following additional meet and confer efforts, Petitioner seeks $14,225 in addition to the sanctions sought in this motion. (Supplemental Meet and Confer Declaration [“Supp. Decl.”], 7:7-8.)

In opposition, Respondent indicates that the motion was originally set for hearing on June 3, 2026, which does not comply with the timelines set forth in Code of Civil Procedure, § 2024.020. (Opposition, 2:22-28.) Respondent further argues that he and Respondent were present for the scheduled deposition, were “denied entry,” and waited outside for around twenty minutes after the time set for the deposition had passed. (Opposition, 2:6-19.) Respondent seeks sanctions totaling $2,500. (Opposition, 6:6-7.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24PR002924: MOHAMMAD ZAMIRI LIVING TRUST 07/01/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other Motion to Compel the Deposition of Azar Ghafouri in Department 126

In reply, Petitioner again asserts Respondent must be compelled to attend the deposition, and that the Court retains discretion to hear the untimely motion to compel. (Reply, 2:17-18, 5:7-17.)

This matter was continued on June 3, 2026 on the Court’s own motion to allow the parties to continue meet and confer efforts.

“Any party may obtain discovery by taking in California the oral deposition of any person, including any party to the action.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.010.) “If, after service of a deposition notice, a party to the action without having served a valid objection under Section 2025.410, fails to appear for examination, or to proceed with it, the party giving the notice may move for an order compelling the deponent’s attendance and testimony ” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450(a).) The movant must show good cause and the motion must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration or declaration stating the petitioner contacted the deponent to inquire about the nonappearance. (Id., at subd. (b).)

First, Respondent opposes on the grounds that the motion to compel is untimely. “Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, any party shall be entitled as a matter of right to complete discovery proceedings on or before the 30th day, and to have motions concerning discovery heard on or before the 15th day, before the date initially set for the trial of the action.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.020(a).) “Except as provided in Section 2024.050, a continuance or postponement of the trial date does not operate to reopen discovery proceedings.” (Id., at subd. (b).) The register of actions reflects the Court granted all requests in Petitioner’s status report filed on May 4, 2026, including the request to reopen discovery. (Minute Order, May 12, 2026.) Thus, the Court declines to deny the motion on this basis.

Here, Petitioner has demonstrated good cause, as the memorandum of points and authorities and accompanying declaration indicate Respondent’s counsel was notified in advance to coordinate the deposition date, was notified about the deposition date upon counsel’s nonresponse, did not serve an objection to the deposition notice, and did not provide advance notice of the persons who would attend as requested. (MPA, 2:13-3:6.) Both parties maintain Respondent did not attend the deposition and the deposition did not occur. (MPA, 3:8, Opposition, 5:3-4, 17-19; Declaration of Dan Near, ¶ 10-11.)

Respondent maintains that access to the deposition was prevented because Respondent and counsel did not provide their names to security, which they allege “[was] not a requirement.” (Opposition, 5:3.) Regardless of the logistical breakdown of the attendance at the deposition, Respondent does not dispute the nonresponse to the coordination of the deposition date and time, lack of objection to the deposition notice, or that the deposition did not occur as noticed. When a nonmoving party fails to oppose a ground for a motion ‘it is assumed that [nonmoving party] concedes’ that ground.” (D.I. Chadbourne, Inc. v. Superior Court (1964) 60 Cal.2d 723, 728, fn.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24PR002924: MOHAMMAD ZAMIRI LIVING TRUST 07/01/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other Motion to Compel the Deposition of Azar Ghafouri in Department 126

4.)

Thus, because good cause exists, Petitioner inquired about the nonappearance, and because Respondent did not oppose any of these points, the motion must be granted.

The motion is GRANTED. Sanctions requested by Petitioner are granted, as the imposition is mandatory. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.450(g)(1).)

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