Universal Coatings, Inc. v. Madrone Ventures, Inc., et al.

Universal Coatings, Inc. v. Madrone Ventures, Inc., et al. (and Related Cross-Claim)

Universal Coatings, Inc.’s Motion for Relief Under Code of Civil Procedure Section 473(b)

Hearing Date: April 24, 2026

The motion of Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant Universal Coatings, Inc. (“UCI”) for relief under Code of Civil Procedure section 473 from this Court’s prior order denying its motion to compel Defendant and Cross-Complainant Madrone Ventures, Inc. (“Madrone”) to comply with UCI’s Third Inspection Demand (“Motion to Compel”) on the grounds of untimeliness is GRANTED. The attorney declarations supporting UCI’s motion adequately explain the mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect in not filing a Motion to Compel after the Second Inspection Demand.

Handling attorney Philip Downs stated that ongoing communications between Madrone and Timur Bilir’s office led Mr. Downs to believe there was no deadline to file the motion, especially since all parties were working in good faith to set an inspection date within mutually agreed parameters. [Downs Decl. at ¶ 9; see also Bilir Decl. at ¶¶ 13-14.] Philip McDermott, the current attorney representing UCI in this case, affirms in his declaration that he has actively pursued this motion following the Court’s ruling, making multiple phone calls and drafting, then obtaining, signed declarations from other attorneys. [McDermott Decl. at ¶ 11.]

With the motion granted, the Court can now decide on the Motion to Compel, which the parties fully briefed for the December 2025 hearing. The Court is contemplating an order for another inspection and testing, but more information is required. The parties shall contact the Discovery Facilitator to help prepare a Joint Statement that addresses the following questions or to coordinate an agreement for this inspection.

1. Does UCI have the samples collected on August 29, 2022, by its own consultant? If so, what size are they?

2. Does UCI have its one-third of the Dregger samples from September 20, 2023? Are the other two sample groups with someone else? What are their sizes? Dregger’s samples are admissible in this proceeding because the mediation privilege does not apply, as the roof samples are not considered a “writing.” [See Rojas v. Superior Court (2004) 33 Cal.4th 407, 416-417.]

3. Does UCI have photos of the roof from their inspections in 2022-2023?

4. What size samples are currently being requested? What is the difference between a new request and existing samples? Why is that difference

important?

5. The Motion to Compel describes the new samples as being taken from areas going down 6 to 12 inches and measuring approximately 8 by 12 inches each, with up to 10 samples. How will these large samples affect the integrity of the roof? What are the concerns about repairing these spots where samples were taken?

The Motion to Compel hearing is continued to June 26, 2026, with the Joint Statement to be filed no later than June 18, 2026.

NOTE RE TENTATIVE RULING

This tentative ruling becomes the court’s order, and no hearing shall be held unless one of the parties contests it by following Rule 3.1308 of the California Rules of Court and Monterey County Local Rule 7.9. Those parties wishing to present an oral argument must notify all other parties and the Court no later than 4:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing; otherwise, NO ORAL ARGUMENT WILL BE PERMITTED, AND THE TENTATIVE RULING WILL BECOME THE ORDER OF THE COURT AND THE HEARING VACATED. You must notify the court by email or by calling the Calendar Department at 831-647-5800, extension 3040, before 4:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing.

2