KATSMA vs CAPITAL NEPHROLOGY ACCESS CENTER, LLC

25CV000475: KATSMA vs CAPITAL NEPHROLOGY ACCESS CENTER, LLC 09/03/2026 Hearing on Motion for Protective Order 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.

25CV000475: KATSMA vs CAPITAL NEPHROLOGY ACCESS CENTER, LLC 09/03/2026 Hearing on Motion for Protective Order 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: Plaintiff Crystal Katsma’s motion for protective order is denied.

By way of the instant motion, Plaintiff seeks a protective order “vacating the March 3, 2026 deposition date and resetting Plaintiff’s deposition to another mutually agreeable date within a reasonable time.” (Not. 2:6-7.) Plaintiff contends that March 3, 2026 was a Jewish holiday which her lead counsel was observing with family. Plaintiff indicates that associate counsel was awaiting a trial verdict in Bakersfield which came down on March 2, 2026. Plaintiff claims that Defendant Capital Nephrology Access Center, LLC was asked to reschedule the deposition but refused to do so.

Defendant opposes the motion on the basis that it is untimely and that in any event Plaintiff cannot show good cause.

CCP § 2025.420(a) states that “[b]efore, during, or after a deposition, any party, any deponent, or any other affected natural person or organization may promptly move for a protective order. The motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.” (CCP § 2025.420(a).) 'Where a party must resort to the courts, 'the burden is on the party seeking the protective order to show good cause for whatever order is sought.' [citation omitted].' (Nativi v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 261, 318.)

The Court agrees with Defendant’s contention that the motion is untimely. CCP § 2025.420(a) requires that a motion for protective order be “promptly” made. On January 8, 2026, Plaintiff specifically advised Defendant that March 3, 2026 was an acceptable date for her deposition. (Patten Decl. ¶¶ 11-12, Exhs. F-G.) Defendant noticed Plaintiff’s deposition for that date accordingly. (Id.) Plaintiff then waited until February 23, 2026 to request that the deposition be rescheduled. (Id. ¶ 13, Exh. H.) Defendant declined the request that same day. (Id. ¶ 14.) Plaintiff then waited until March 3, 2026, the day of the noticed deposition, to file and serve the instant motion. Under these circumstances

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV000475: KATSMA vs CAPITAL NEPHROLOGY ACCESS CENTER, LLC 09/03/2026 Hearing on Motion for Protective Order in Department 16D

the Court concludes that the motion was not “promptly” made. Again, Plaintiff offered the March 3, 2026 deposition date in early January 2026. While Plaintiff states “that offering it was a mistake” (Reply at 3:25), Plaintiff then waited approximately six weeks to request a change in the deposition date, on February 23, 2026. Plaintiff provides no explanation, much less a justification, why it waited six weeks to make this request. Notably, Defendant has been seeking to take Plaintiff’s deposition since August 2025 and had rescheduled the deposition previously to accommodate Plaintiff’s counsel’s schedule. (Patten Decl. ¶¶ 2-11.)

Yet, Plaintiff then waited until the day of the deposition to file and serve the motion. Again, Plaintiff provides no explanation, much less justification, for why it did not file and serve this motion earlier. The motion is denied on the basis that it was not “promptly” made.

While the Court need not proceed further, it also concludes that Plaintiff has not established the requisite good cause for the requested protective order, providing yet another basis for denial of this motion. First, the motion specifically asks for an order vacating the March 3, 2026 deposition date. However, that date has long since passed and Defendant made a record of non-appearance at the March 3, 2026 deposition. (Patten Decl. ¶ 17.) There is no longer a March 3, 2026 deposition for the Court to vacate.

Thus, the specific relief sought by the motion cannot be granted as it is moot. Moreover, Defendant set the deposition for March 3, 2026, in reliance on a date provided by Plaintiff and had done so after having previously accommodated Plaintiff’s calendar in rescheduling the deposition multiple times. (Patten Decl. ¶¶ 2-12.) Furthermore and in light of this history, Plaintiff provides no compelling argument why its associate counsel could not attend the deposition on March 3, 2026, especially when the verdict in Bakersfield which the associate attended took place the day before, on March 2, 2026.

Plaintiff’s counsel’s desire to be present, while generally reasonable, was not a reasonable condition under these specific circumstances. While the Court typically encourages parties to cooperate in scheduling depositions and permit rescheduling when necessary (especially for religious purposes), the facts presented here demonstrate that Defendant made numerous attempts to schedule the subject deposition and that the previously agreed upon March 3, 2026 deposition date was feasible to proceed, even if not Plaintiff’s counsel’s preference.

In sum, Plaintiff has not established good cause for the requested relief, even if the relief requested was not moot.

The Court declines to address Plaintiff’s request in reply to find that her failure to appear at the March 3, 2026 deposition was substantially justified. That is not the relief sought by the notice of motion and not the argument that was presented in the moving papers. Plaintiff instead sought a protective order “vacating the March 3, 2026 deposition date and resetting Plaintiff’s deposition to another mutually agreeable date within a reasonable time.” Any issues with respect to whether Plaintiff’s failure to appear was substantially justified, at most, may be addressed in connection with Defendant’s motion

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV000475: KATSMA vs CAPITAL NEPHROLOGY ACCESS CENTER, LLC 09/03/2026 Hearing on Motion for Protective Order in Department 16D

to compel which is set to be heard on September 8, 2026, if the parties fail to resolve their issues informally so as to obviate the need for such future hearing. If the parties resolve this dispute in light of this ruling, Defendant shall notify the Court as soon as possible to drop its motion.

Plaintiff also appears to suggest that a protective order is warranted because Defendant’s responses to her discovery are inadequate. Specifically, Plaintiff contends that Defendant has not produced documents needed for her deposition preparation. Contrary to Plaintiff's suggestion, there is no discovery priority in California. No statute or case law supports the right of one party to take the deposition of the other, or to have certain discovery completed, prior to being deposed. The Court notes that CCP § 2019.020(a) provides that “the fact that a party is conducting discovery, whether by deposition or another method, shall not operate to delay the discovery of any other party.” (CCP § 2019.020(a).)

Thus, while Plaintiff may indeed be seeking documents from Defendant, that does not permit Plaintiff to delay her own deposition even if she served that discovery before Defendant noticed her deposition.

Plaintiff’s motion is denied.

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is denied given the motion was denied.

Defendant’s request for sanctions is denied. The Court finds that sanctions would be unjust under the circumstances.

The notice of motion does not provide notice of the Court’s tentative ruling system as required by Local Rule 1.06(D). Plaintiff’s counsel is ordered to notify Defendant’s counsel immediately of the tentative ruling system and to be available at the hearing in person, via Zoom or by telephone, in the event Defendant’s counsel appears without following the procedures set forth in Local Rule 1.06(B).

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