NEAL vs THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, et al.

25CV002998: NEAL vs THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, et al. 08/18/2025 Hearing on Motion to Compel Production of Documents in Department 53

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 25, located at 720 9th 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/my/sscdept25 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 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

25CV002998: NEAL vs THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, et al. 08/18/2025 Hearing on Motion to Compel Production of Documents in Department 53

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

Plaintiff’s Notice of Motion does not provide notice of the Court’s tentative ruling system, as required by Local Rule 1.06(D). Plaintiff is directed to contact opposing counsel forthwith to advise counsel of Local Rule 1.06 and the Court’s tentative ruling procedure. If Plaintiff is unable to contact opposing counsel prior to the hearing, Plaintiff shall be available at the hearing, in person or remotely (telephonically or by video conference via Zoom as stated in the introductory notice to today’s tentative rulings), in the event opposing counsel appears without following the procedures set forth in Local Rule 1.06(B).

Plaintiff Adam L Neal’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion to Compel is ruled upon as follows.

Plaintiff in pro per brings the instant action against Defendant the Regents of the University of California (“Defendant”) in relation to Plaintiff’s alleged arrest by Doe Defendants, followed by an involuntary hold in a mental facility. Plaintiff alleges that he went to the U.C. Davis Medical Center Emergency Room with complaints of sleep deprivation. (Am. Complaint, p. 8:17-19.) After being prescribed medication and falling asleep, Plaintiff was arrested by Doe Defendants and transferred to a mental health facility in Santa Rosa. (Am. Compl., p. 8:19-21.) When he was released, his clothes and other possessions were missing. (Am. Compl., p. 9:3-10.)

Plaintiff served Defendant with requests for production of documents, set one on February 27, 2025. (Gray Decl., ¶ 5; Neal Decl., p. 15:6-7.) Plaintiff served Defendant with requests for production of documents, set two on March 15, 2025. (Gray Decl., ¶ 7; Neal Decl., p. 15:8-11.) Defendant served its responses to each set of requests on March 15, 2025 and April 3, 2025, respectively. (Gray Decl., ¶¶ 7, 8.) Plaintiff invited Defendant to meet and confer, via correspondence on April 21, 2025. (Neal Decl., p. 15:12-20.)

During meet and confer efforts on April 22, 2025, Defendant represented that it continues to object, Plaintiff represented that he had not received any objections, and Defendant sent Plaintiff copies of the objections. (Neal Decl., p. 15:21-16:1-2.) As Defendant responded to the discovery requests at issue and Plaintiff includes some of those responses in his Motion, the Court construes the instant motion to be one for further responses.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV002998: NEAL vs THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, et al. 08/18/2025 Hearing on Motion to Compel Production of Documents in Department 53

It is unclear from Plaintiff’s motion exactly which requests, if any, on which he seeks further responses. Plaintiff appears to seek to compel the production of records, but again, it is unclear as to which requests.

Separate Statement

California Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(c) sets forth the format required for a separate statement. A separate statement must contain:

(1) The text of the request, interrogatory, question, or inspection demand;

(2) The text of each response, answer, or objection, and any further responses or answers;

(3) A statement of the factual and legal reasons for compelling further responses, answers, or production as to each matter in dispute;

(4) If necessary, the text of all definitions, instructions, and other matters required to understand each discovery request and the responses to it;

(5) If the response to a particular discovery request is dependent on the response given to another discovery request, or if the reasons a further response to a particular discovery request is deemed necessary are based on the response to some other discovery request, the other request and the response to it must be set forth; and

(6) If the pleadings, other documents in the file, or other items of discovery are relevant to the motion, the party relying on them must summarize each relevant document. (Ibid.)

The separate statement required by California Rule of Court, rule 3.1345 must be full and complete so that no person is required to review any other document to ascertain the full request and the full response, and the reasons why further response should be

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV002998: NEAL vs THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, et al. 08/18/2025 Hearing on Motion to Compel Production of Documents in Department 53

compelled. (CRC, Rule 3.1345, subd. (c).) A motion to compel is properly denied if no separate statement in full compliance with the rules accompanies the motion. (See Mills v. U.S. Bank (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 871, 893; St. Mary v. Superior Court (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 762, 777-778.) Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300 provides: “In lieu of a separate statement required under the California Rules of Court, the court may allow the moving party to submit a concise outline of the discovery request and each response in dispute.”

In this case, Plaintiff’s motion fails to include a separate statement as required by California Rule of Court, rule 3.1345. Moreover, the motion submitted by Plaintiff does not constitute a “concise outline” of the requests at issue. Further, coupled with the lack of any exhibit in the moving papers which would provide the Court with a copy of each request/response, the Court cannot evaluate whether the responses are improper, as Plaintiff contends.

Further, to the extent Plaintiff also purports to seek an order compelling Defendant’s production of documents responsive to the subject requests, the motion must be denied because (1) Plaintiff did not file a motion to compel compliance pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.320(a) and (2) such an order would not be appropriate here. A motion to compel compliance pursuant to section 2031.320(a) is appropriate only where a responding party has agreed to produce documents, but then fails to permit inspection consistent with that response. Here, the motion does not indicate that Defendant has failed to produce any documents which it previously agreed to produce and thus, there is no justification for an order compelling Defendant to comply with its prior agreement to produce responsive documents.

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion to compel is DENIED.

Meet and Confer

Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310, a motion to compel further responses to a request for production of documents must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2016.040. Section 2016.040 provides that “[a] meet and confer declaration in support of a motion shall state facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion.”

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV002998: NEAL vs THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, et al. 08/18/2025 Hearing on Motion to Compel Production of Documents in Department 53

In this case, Plaintiff’s declaration asserts that a meet and confer efforts occurred on April 21-22, 2025. During the second meet and confer conference, Plaintiff represented that he had not received the objections referenced and Defendant sent a copy of the objections. There were no further meet and confer efforts after Plaintiff received Defendant’s responses, which appear to be at issue in this motion. Accordingly, the Court does not find that, based upon his own declaration, Plaintiff has met the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 2016.040, which requires attempts to resolve each issue presented by the motion, which necessarily involves the responses to each request.

Accordingly and alternatively, Plaintiff’s motion is also DENIED for failure to comply with the meet and confer requirement.

Because the Court denies Plaintiff’s motion to compel, the Court also denies Plaintiff’s request for sanctions.

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