TRAVIS TEXER ET AL VS. GARY ROMERO ET AL

September 4, 2026 Dept. 9 Civil Tentative Rulings

14. 25CV0550 TRAVIS TEXER ET AL VS. GARY ROMERO ET AL MOTION TO COMPEL

Defendants, Folsom Hall Investors, Inc. dba Keller Williams Realty – Folsom, a California Corporation, and Ricky O’Neal (“Defendants”), move to compel and request monetary sanctions against Plaintiffs, Travis Texer and Michelle Texer (“Plaintiffs”). No opposition has been filed. On March 31, 2026, Defendants served Requests for Production of Documents, Set One to Plaintiff Michelle Texer and Requests for Production of Documents, Set One to Plaintiff Travis Texer (collectively the “Discovery Requests”) on Plaintiffs through their counsel.

After the statutory deadline passed, Defendants’ counsel met and conferred with Plaintiffs’ counsel and agreed that Plaintiffs would provide objection-free responses. On May 28, 2026, Plaintiffs provided responses to the Requests for Production of Documents; however, the response contained “General Objections,” and indicated that they would comply with the requests to produce all documents “to which no objection is being made.” Included with the document responses was “TEXER0095 through TEXER0108” which was extensively redacted.

Defendants seek the following: 1. Declare that Plaintiffs have waived all objections to the subject discovery requests; 2. Order Plaintiffs to provide amended responses that omit the “General Objections” and omit the qualification that responsive documents will be produced if “no objection is being made”; 3. Order Plaintiffs to produce any responsive documents that were withheld based on the General Objections and qualification addressed in number 2; 4. Order Plaintiffs to produce completely unredacted copies of TEXER0095 through TEXER0108; and 5.

Order Plaintiffs’ attorney, Kevin James, and his firm, Becker, Nelson, Center and James, jointly and severally, be ordered to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $735.00 to $1,185.00. If a party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is directed fails to serve a timely response to it, the party to whom the demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is directed waives any objection to the demand, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product.

Code of Civil Procedure § 2031.300(a). Misuses of the discovery process include making, without substantial justification, an unmeritorious objection to discovery. Code of Civil Procedure § 2023.010. If a party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is directed fails to serve a timely response to it, the court shall impose a monetary sanction against any party,

September 4, 2026 Dept. 9 Civil Tentative Rulings

person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, 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. Code of Civil Procedure § 2031.300(c). The Court finds that Plaintiffs failed to timely serve responses to the Discovery Requests and therefore waived all objections. Plaintiffs are ordered to provide amended responses that omit all objections, whether general or specific.

As Plaintiffs waived all objections, including one based on privilege or protection for work product, the redaction of TEXER0095 through TEXER0108 was improper. Plaintiffs are ordered to provide an unredacted copy of TEXER0095 through TEXER0108 and all responsive documents that were withheld based on objections. Defendants’ request for sanctions in the amount of $787.50 is granted. TENTATIVE RULING #14: DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO COMPEL IS GRANTED AS REQUESTED. DEFENDANTS’ REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS IS GRANTED IN THE AMOUNT OF $787.50.

NO HEARING ON THIS MATTER WILL BE HELD UNLESS A REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT IS TRANSMITTED ELECTRONICALLY THROUGH THE COURT’S WEBSITE OR BY TELEPHONE TO THE COURT AT (530) 621-6551 BY 4:00 P.M. ON THE DAY THE TENTATIVE RULING IS ISSUED. CAL. RULE CT. 3.1308; LOCAL RULE 8.05.07; SEE ALSO LEWIS V. SUPERIOR COURT, 19 CAL.4TH 1232, 1247 (1999). NOTICE TO ALL PARTIES OF A REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT AND THE GROUNDS UPON WHICH ARGUMENT IS BEING REQUESTED MUST BE MADE BY TELEPHONE OR IN PERSON BY 4:00 P.M.

ON THE DAY THE TENTATIVE RULING IS ISSUED. CAL. RULE CT. 3.1308; EL DORADO COUNTY LOCAL RULE 8.05.07. PROOF OF SERVICE OF SAID NOTICE MUST BE FILED PRIOR TO OR AT THE HEARING. LONG CAUSE HEARINGS MUST BE REQUESTED BY 4:00 P.M. ON THE DAY THE TENTATIVE RULING IS ISSUED AND THE PARTIES ARE TO PROVIDE THE COURT WITH THREE MUTUALLY AGREEABLE DATES ON FRIDAY AFTERNOONS AT 2:30 P.M. LONG CAUSE ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTS WILL BE SET FOR HEARING ON ONE OF THE THREE MUTUALLY AGREEABLE DATES ON FRIDAY AFTERNOONS AT 2:30 P.M.

THE COURT WILL ADVISE THE PARTIES OF THE LONG CAUSE HEARING DATE AND TIME BY 5:00 P.M. ON THE DAY THE TENTATIVE RULING IS ISSUED. PARTIES MAY PERSONALLY APPEAR AT THE HEARING.

September 4, 2026 Dept. 9 Civil Tentative Rulings

15. 25CV2442 ELIJAH CARON ET AL VS. DOMINICK SAGER ET AL MOTION TO COMPEL / MOTION TO ENFORFORCE CONTRACTUAL HOLDOVER RENT AND MODIFY FAIR RENTAL VALUE

Before the Court are three motions: 1) Defendants’ Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set Two; 2) Defendants’ Motion to Compel Further Responses to Demand for Production of Documents, Set Two to Elijah Caron; and 3) Defendants’ Motion to Enforce Contractual Holdover Rent and Modify Fair Rental Value Payment Order. MOTIONS TO COMPEL As to Defendants’ Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set Two and Motion to Compel Further Responses to Demand for Production of Documents, Set Two to Elijah Caron (collectively the “Discovery Motions”) filed on July 20, 2026, the Court finds the meet and confer efforts to be inadequate.

The Court therefore orders the following: Parties are to immediately begin the meet and confer process on the Discovery Motions dated July 20, 2026. The parties are ordered to meet and confer on video conference or in person in a good faith effort to resolve each matter on an item-by-item basis. Both parties are referred to standards of professionalism and civility as discussed in Townsend v. Superior Court (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1431, 1439; and Manzetti v. Superior Court (1993) 21 Cal.App.4th 373, 380, fn.8.

The meet and confer meeting(s) is to be recorded and the recording is to be made available to the Court at the hearing. All parties/attorneys are ordered to make the recording or may all agree to only one party making the recording. No later than October 9, 2026, the parties shall file a JOINT status report of no more than 5 pages outlining which, if any, items remain in dispute and why, including any request for sanctions. Failure to sign and participate in drafting the joint report will open each side to monetary sanctions for failure to follow this Order pursuant to California Rules of Court 5.14 and 5.98.

The parties shall not file a response or reply papers or any other papers in support or opposition of this motion. The court will only consider the joint status report that should explain what item(s) remains in dispute and the legal reasons why it’s in dispute. Parties shall explain the amount of monetary sanctions sought and the reasons why within the joint status report such that the court can address the same in any subsequent order individually. The court reminds the parties that it is not enough to refer the court back to the original papers or to other papers filed in association with each matter or previous status report.

Moreover, the joint status report(s) should proceed to list items remaining in dispute along with the legal reason(s) why. The parties shall submit a joint status report that complies with CRC

33