Mikalai Piatrouski vs. Carlos Alberto Arias

34-2022-00330270-CU-PA-GDS: Mikalai Piatrouski vs. Carlos Alberto Arias 09/02/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One from Defendant Saladinos, Inc. in Department 8D

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 8D Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-7719 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 8D Zoom Link is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16113421868 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 1342 1868. 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-services-transcripts. 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.

34-2022-00330270-CU-PA-GDS: Mikalai Piatrouski vs. Carlos Alberto Arias 09/02/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One from Defendant Saladinos, Inc. in Department 8D

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.

*** 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 25 WILL BE HEARD IN DEPARTMENT 8D OF THE NEW COURTHOUSE. ***

TENTATIVE RULING

The motion of plaintiff Mikalai Piatrouski (Plaintiff) to compel further responses to Request for Production (“RFP”) of Documents, Set One, from defendant Saladino’s, Inc. (“Defendant”) and for monetary sanctions is ruled on herein.

Factual Background

This action arises from a multi-vehicle accident that occurred on February 12, 2021. (Compl., p. 4.) Plaintiff’s Complaint asserts motor vehicle and negligence causes of action against all named defendants, asserting that they negligently owned, operated, and maintained their vehicles in such a manner so as to collide with Plaintiff’s vehicle, thereby causing Plaintiff personal injury as well as property damage. (Id. at p. 5.)

On July 3, 2025, Plaintiff propounded RFP of Documents Set One, on Defendant. (Silva Decl., ¶ 7.) Defendant served its responses and objections by the stipulated extended deadline of September 29, 2025. (Id. at ¶¶ 10-11, Exhibit 5.) Based on Defendant’s responses and objections, Plaintiff met and conferred with Defendant in an effort to resolve disputes. (Id. at ¶ 12.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2022-00330270-CU-PA-GDS: Mikalai Piatrouski vs. Carlos Alberto Arias 09/02/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One from Defendant Saladinos, Inc. in Department 8D

Plaintiff filed the present motion on March 3, 2026. On August 5, 2026, the Court ordered that the parties engage in further meet-and-confer efforts to attempt to resolve or narrow the issues raised in the motion, and ordered the parties to file a Joint Statement by no later than August 19, 2026. (Min. Order, Aug. 5, 2026.)

The parties filed a Joint Statement on August 19, 2026, wherein the parties state they have resolved all issues pertaining to Request Nos. 12, 18, 29, 31, and 39, and that no order is required regarding these requests. (Joint Statement, 1:28-2:1.) The parties have also stipulated to a proposed protective order as to Request Nos. 33, 34, and 40, pursuant to which Defendant will produce documents responsive to these requests, as well as further verified responses, within 10 days of the entry of protective order. (Id. at 2:23-26, Exhibit 1.)

The parties have been unable to resolve their dispute concerning Requests Nos. 38 and 41 and request a ruling on these requests, which pertain to the employment and disciplinary records of Defendant’s employee and codefendant Aaron Bearden (“Bearden”). Defendant admits that Bearden was acting in the course and scope of his employment with Defendant at the time of the accident. (Defendant’s response to RFP No. 38.)

Legal Standard

Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.210, subdivision (a) provides:

The party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling has been directed shall respond separately to each item or category of item by any of the following:

(1) A statement that the party will comply with the particular demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling by the date set for the inspection, copying, testing, or sampling pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (c) of Section 2031.030 and any related activities.

(2) A representation that the party lacks the ability to comply with the demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling of a particular item or category of item.

(3) An objection to the particular demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2022-00330270-CU-PA-GDS: Mikalai Piatrouski vs. Carlos Alberto Arias 09/02/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One from Defendant Saladinos, Inc. in Department 8D

On receipt of a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, the demanding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the demanding party deems that any of the following apply:

(1) A statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete.

(2) A representation of inability to comply is inadequate.

(3) An objection in the response is without merit or too general.

(Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.310, subd. (a).)

In a motion to compel further responses to requests for production, the burden is on the moving party to show both relevance to the subject matter and specific facts justifying discovery. (Glenfed Develop. Corp. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1117; Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.310 [requiring a showing of good cause for production of documents].) Once good cause is established by the moving party, the burden then shifts to the responding party to justify any objections made to document disclosure. (See Hartbrodt v. Burke (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 168, 172-174.)

Discussion

RFP No. 38

RFP No. 38 requests the following:

All DOCUMENTS/ELECTRONICALLY STORED INFORMATION contained in AARON BEARDEN’S employment file with his employer at the time of the SUBJECT INCIDENT.

Plaintiff argues discovery should be allowed because it is relevant determining the issue of driver negligence, as it is undisputed that Bearden was in the course and scope of his employment with Defendant during the accident. Plaintiff also argues that the records are relevant to potential punitive damages claims against Defendant.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2022-00330270-CU-PA-GDS: Mikalai Piatrouski vs. Carlos Alberto Arias 09/02/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One from Defendant Saladinos, Inc. in Department 8D

In opposition, Defendant asserts the request is unlikely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence because Defendant has admitted vicarious liability and thus, pursuant to Jeld-Wen v. Superior Court (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 853 (“Jeld-Wen”) and Diaz v. Carcamo (2011) 51 Cal.4th 1148 (“Diaz”), the information is not relevant. Defendant contends that when “an employer offers to admit vicarious liability for its employee’s negligent driving, then claims against the employer based on theories of negligent entrustment, hiring, or retention become superfluous,” and evidence to support those theories such as past accidents become inadmissible. (Diaz, supra, 51 Cal.4th at pp. 1160, 1161-1162.)

Defendant also raises objections on the ground that the request is vague and ambiguous, overbroad, and that the request is argumentative and assumes facts not established. Defendant further objects on the grounds that the contents of Bearden’s personnel file are subject to the right of privacy under the California Constitution and constitutes inadmissible character evidence.

In the discovery context, information is relevant “if it might reasonably assist a party in evaluating its case, preparing for trial, or facilitating a settlement. [citations omitted] Admissibility is not the test and information, unless privileged, is discoverable if it might reasonably lead to admissible evidence.” (Lipton v. Superior Court (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1599, 1611-1612.) For discovery purposes, information is “relevant to the subject matter” if it might reasonably assist a party in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement. (Gonzalez v.

Superior Court (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1539, 1546.) In determining whether to allow discovery, the trial court “can only attempt to foresee whether it is possible that information in a particular subject area could be relevant or admissible at the time of trial.” (Maldonado v. Superior Court (2002) 94 Cal.App.4th 1390, 1397.) Furthermore, the “relevance to the subject matter” and “reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence” standards are applied liberally. Any doubt is generally resolved in favor of permitting discovery. (Colonial Life & Acc.

Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1982) 31 Cal.3d 785, 790.)

Here, Plaintiff seeks discovery regarding Bearden’s employment that could support a determination of negligence.[1] (See Joint Statement at p. 8:12-21.) While Defendant’s prior driving issues may ultimately be inadmissible to show conduct on the date of the action, the Court cannot determine—prior to disclosure of the discovery propounded in this matter— whether such information may be used to show some other fact other than his disposition to commit such an act. (See Evid. Code section 1101.) The fact that the employer admits the employee was acting within the course of employment is not the same as admitting that the employee was negligent and that defendant is vicariously liable for the employees negligent conduct. Thus, any information that could lead to admissible evidence of the employee’s

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2022-00330270-CU-PA-GDS: Mikalai Piatrouski vs. Carlos Alberto Arias 09/02/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One from Defendant Saladinos, Inc. in Department 8D

negligence is relevant. Indeed, this matter is before the Court on a discovery motion, not on admissibility at trial. (Volkswagen of America, Inc. v. Superior Court (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 1481, 1490–1491 [A “claim that discovery is not warranted because the evidence disclosed would not itself be admissible is untenable. It is settled that admissibility is not prerequisite to discovery.”].)

The Court is otherwise not persuaded by the authorities cited by Defendant in support of its argument that Bearden’s employment file as a driver with Defendant is not reasonably likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Jeld-Wen concerned a motion for summary judgment and whether the plaintiffs’ negligent entrustment theory against the employer could proceed once an employer has admitted before trial to vicarious liability for its employee’s negligence. The Jeld-Wen court did not state that discovery of the type sought here was not permitted where the employer had admitted vicarious liability. The Diaz case also concerned the admissibility of evidence at trial. It did not state that discovery of the type sought here was not permitted where the employer had admitted vicarious liability.

While Defendant has admitted Bearden was operating the vehicle in the course and scope of his employment with Defendant, Bearden’s manner of operating the vehicle remains in dispute and the requested records go towards that issue and discoverable under the liberal standard applicable to discovery. The Court is not persuaded that such records are not reasonably likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The objection is therefore OVERRULED.

Defendant’s objection on the grounds of Bearden’s privacy does not compel a different conclusion. “[T]he party asserting a privacy interest” has the burden “to establish its extent and the seriousness of the prospective invasion,” which the court “must weigh [against] the countervailing interests the opposing party identifies.” (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 557.) Here, Defendant argues that the disclosure of the requested documents would necessarily compromise Bearden’s right to privacy in his personnel files, which may include documents regarding compensation, benefits, medical or leave information, performance evaluations, disciplinary history, background information, identifying data, and confidential communications.

The Court does not find here a privacy interest that would override Plaintiff’s right to discovery, and Defendant makes no argument as to why a protective order will not lessen privacy concerns. The Court also disagrees with Defendant that Bearden’s personnel records constitute inadmissible character evidence as that issue is more appropriately dealt with by the trial judge when they evaluate admissibility issues. The objection is therefore OVERRULED.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2022-00330270-CU-PA-GDS: Mikalai Piatrouski vs. Carlos Alberto Arias 09/02/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One from Defendant Saladinos, Inc. in Department 8D

Defendant’s objection on the grounds the request is vague and ambiguous is OVERRULED because Defendant has failed to justify the objection. Defendant relies on Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 783 in asserting this objection, which states, in relevant part: “Indeed, where the question is somewhat ambiguous, but the nature of the information sought is apparent, the proper solution is to provide an appropriate response.” The Courts finds the request is not so ambiguous that Defendant cannot provide a response.

Defendant’s objection that the request “assumes facts not in evidence” is improper and therefore OVERRULED. This is not a proper objection in the context of written discovery. (See W. Pico Furniture Co. v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 407, 421.)

Lastly, Defendant’s objection on the grounds of overbreadth is OVERRULED. The request not overbroad simply because it seeks “all” documents. The request is limited to documents from Bearden’s employment file up to the date of the accident. Defendant also has not sufficiently explained how locating and producing responsive documents would be unduly burdensome.

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to RFP No. 38 is GRANTED.

RFP No. 41

RFP No. 41 requests the following:

All DOCUMENTS/ELECTRONICALLY STORED INFORMATION regarding any disciplinary actions taken against AARON BEARDEN as a result of the SUBJECT INCIDENT.

Plaintiff argues that discovery of the disciplinary actions taken against Bearden could lead to discovery of admissible evidence regarding Defendant’s perspectives on the cause of the accident. Plaintiff argues this information is necessary for purposes of conducting depositions or other discovery matters.

In opposition, Defendant asserts the request seeks collateral employment information that has no tendency to prove how Bearden operated the vehicle on the date of the accident. Defendant argues that any disciplinary action taken after the accident is a post hoc employment determination, rather than contemporaneous evidence of negligence because it could not have

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2022-00330270-CU-PA-GDS: Mikalai Piatrouski vs. Carlos Alberto Arias 09/02/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One from Defendant Saladinos, Inc. in Department 8D

informed Defendant’s earlier hiring decision or pre-accident supervision or retention of Bearden. Defendant raises objections on the ground that the request is overbroad, that it not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence under Diaz, supra, 51 Cal.4th 1148., and seeks premature expert opinion testimony. Defendant objects on the grounds that the phrase “regarding any disciplinary actions” necessarily implicates communications covered by the attorney-client privilege. Lastly, Defendant objects on the grounds that the records disciplinary actions are subject the right of privacy under the California Constitution and constitutes inadmissible character evidence.

For the same reasons discussed above, Defendant’s objection based on relevance as provided under Diaz is OVERRULED. Evidence of disciplinary action taken against Bearden could reasonably lead to admissible evidence of Bearden’s manner of operating the vehicle during the accident.

Plaintiff’s objections based on privacy and inadmissible character evidence are likewise OVERRULED. As stated above, a protective order may lessen Defendant’s privacy concerns, and the issue of character evidence is more appropriately dealt with by the trial judge in evaluating admissibility.

Defendant’s objection on the grounds the request seeks premature expert testimony is OVERRULED because Defendant has failed to justify the objection. The Court also notes that Defendant bases its objection on Nacht & Lewis Architects, Inc. v. Superior Court (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 214, which discusses the attorney work-product doctrine and does not mention expert testimony.

Defendant’s objection on the grounds of overbreadth is OVERRULED for the reasons discussed above (i.e., the request is not overbroad merely because it states “all” records, as it is inherently limited to records regarding disciplinary action(s) taken against Bearden as a result of the accident).

To the extent Defendant withheld documents based upon attorney-client privilege, or any other privilege, Defendant must either provide a further response that provides sufficient factual information for other parties to evaluate the merits of that claim, specifically identifying what documents have been withheld and on what basis, or, if necessary, a privilege log. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.240.) The Joint Statement indicates that Defendant did not serve a privilege log until after the motion was filed. (Joint Statement, 14:7-10.) To the extent that the privilege log

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2022-00330270-CU-PA-GDS: Mikalai Piatrouski vs. Carlos Alberto Arias 09/02/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One from Defendant Saladinos, Inc. in Department 8D

served after the motion was filed complies with this, it need not be re-served. The Court will not, however, evaluate the sufficiency of any log on this motion.

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s request for further responses to RFP 41 is GRANTED.

Sanctions

Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310(h) provides:

Except as provided in subdivision (j), the court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further response to a demand, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.

The Court finds that Defendant opposed this motion with substantial justification. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (h).) Accordingly, the Court denies Plaintiff’s request for sanctions.

Disposition

Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to RFP Nos. 38 and 41 is GRANTED as set forth above. To the extent Defendants has not already done so, Defendant shall serve complete, codecompliant, verified responses, without objections, by no later than September 12, 2026.

Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions is DENIED.

The Court will sign the proposed protective order.

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.)

[1] Plaintiff also contends that such information may be relevant to a punitive damages claim.

When punitive damages are sought against an employer who “admits vicarious liability, neither the complaint’s allegations of employer misconduct relating to the recovery of punitive damages nor the evidence supporting those allegations are superfluous.” (CRST, Inc. v. Superior Court (2017) 11 Cal.App.5th 1255, 1264.) The Court notes that punitive damages are not alleged

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2022-00330270-CU-PA-GDS: Mikalai Piatrouski vs. Carlos Alberto Arias 09/02/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One from Defendant Saladinos, Inc. in Department 8D

in the operative complaint, and Plaintiff has provided no authority to support arguments that discovery in this case should extend beyond the damages alleged in the operative complaint. Nevertheless, for the reasons set forth herein, the Court need not reach the issue, as the Court finds sufficient good cause and relevance for the records sought.