BURKE, et al. vs PACIFIC MODERN HOMES, INC., et al.

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

24CV023959: BURKE, et al. vs PACIFIC MODERN HOMES, INC., et al. 02/17/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Production in Department 53

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.

TENTATIVE RULING:

On the Court's own motion, the Hearing on Motion to Compel Production scheduled for 02/17/2026 is continued to 03/19/2026 at 01:30 PM in Department 53 at Hall of Justice.

Plaintiff Griffin Burke’s (“Plaintiff”) motion for an order compelling Defendant Pacific Modern Homes, Inc. (“PMHI”) to provide further responses to his Requests for Production of Documents, set one (“RFPs”) is once again, CONTINUED on the Court’s own motion to the date and time indicated above, for the reasons set forth herein.

On May 29, 2025, Plaintiff served PMHI with written discovery, including the RFPs at issue in this motion. (Decl. of Griffin Burke ISO Mot. ¶ 1, Ex. 1.) PMHI served its responses on July 1, 2025. (Id. at ¶ 2, Ex. 2.) On July 16, 2025 and July 17, 2025, Plaintiff sent PMHI’s counsel meet-and-confer letters regarding the subject discovery and asked for a response no later than July 30, 2025. (Id. at ¶ 3, Ex. 3.) Plaintiff declared that PMHI never responded to the meet-and-confer letter. (Id. at ¶ 4.)

However, PMHI’s counsel averred in support of PMHI’s opposition[1] that on July 30, 2025, he instructed his paralegal to send a letter to Plaintiff. (Decl. of Nathan R. Harpainter ISO PMHI’s Opp’n ¶ 7.) PMHI’s counsel attached a copy of the July 30th letter and the transmittal email as an attachment to his declaration. (Id., Ex. 7.) The transmittal email was sent to the three email addresses that PMHI used for all correspondence with Plaintiff, and neither PMHI’s counsel nor his paralegal received any notification that the email failed to send or was in some way undeliverable. (Id. ¶ 9.)

On August 18, 2025, Plaintiff moved to compel PMHI’s further responses to RFPs Nos. 1-50. PMHI opposed the motion, in part, on the basis that Plaintiff failed to adequately meet and confer. (Opp’n 4:4-6:5.)

On January 13, 2026, the Court continued the hearing on the motion to February 17, 2026, and ordered the parties to engage in extensive, focused, and directed meet-andconfer efforts regarding all of the issues raised in the motion. The Court further ordered counsel for PMHI to file a joint declaration no later than January 30, 2026, detailing the

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV023959: BURKE, et al. vs PACIFIC MODERN HOMES, INC., et al. 02/17/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Production in Department 53

specific meet-and-confer efforts conducted by the parties, including the dates and lengths of such efforts, and clearly indicating which discovery issues have been resolved, and which issues (if any) remain unresolved, and why.

On February 2, 2026, PMHI’s counsel filed a joint declaration in response to the Court’s January 13, 2026 Minute Order. The parties reported that they were able to resolve their disputes concerning Plaintiff’s form interrogatories and requests for admission, but they did not resolve even a single dispute concerning the 50 RFPs at issue in this motion.

In the joint declaration, the parties stated as follows concerning the RFPs:

Plaintiff's Contention:

22. Severely Limited Production: On January 23, 2026, PMHI produced documents along with a Production Log. Plaintiff notes that the document production provided by PMHI has been extremely limited relative to the scope and breadth of the RFPs at issue. The production received to date does not reasonably appear to be responsive to the full scope of Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, and raises concerns as to the completeness and adequacy of PMHI’s search efforts and review procedures.

23. Custody and Control Language: The parties have preliminarily discussed modifying the language in PMHI’s RFP responses from “Responding Party will produce all non-privileged documents” to “Responding Party will produce all documents to the extent they are in its custody and control.”

24. Absence of Privilege Log: PMHI has not produced a privilege log. Although PMHI indicated during the meet and confer conference that it would “give it consideration” to provide a privilege log for documents withheld on the basis of privilege or attorney-client communications, PMHI has failed to produce such a log. Under California Code of Civil Procedure Section 2031.240,

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV023959: BURKE, et al. vs PACIFIC MODERN HOMES, INC., et al. 02/17/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Production in Department 53

a responding party must provide a privilege log identifying each document withheld on the basis of privilege, protection from discovery, work product doctrine, or other applicable protection, and must state with sufficient detail the reasons for withholding. PMHI’s failure to produce a privilege log prevents Plaintiff from identifying which specific documents are being withheld and on what specific basis, thereby significantly impeding the discovery process and Plaintiff's ability to challenge any privilege claims.

Defendant’s Contentions:

25. PMHI’s position remains that the objections asserted to the specific requests for production are valid. PMHI produced documents to Plaintiff on July 1, 2025 in response to RFPs 4, 5, 11, 12, 13, 14, 18, 26, 27, and 29, along with a production log. PMHI contends these documents represent all responsive documents that were located after a reasonable inquiry and diligent search, and this was indicated in their agreement to comply, also served on July 1, 2025.

26. PMHI’s further position is that a privilege log is not required in these circumstances because of the overly broad nature of the requests to which a privilege objection was asserted. PMHI asserts that Plaintiff's requests failed to reasonably particularize the categories of documents sought in Request for Production Numbers 24, 34, 36, 38, 40, 41, and 46 and that this failure makes it unduly burdensome and oppressive to require the preparation of such a privilege log.

(Joint Decl. 4:19-5:24.)

The Court remains of the opinion that the parties have not adequately met and conferred concerning the instant motion. The motion concerns 50 RFPs, and the parties were unable to resolve their disputes as to even a single one. Moreover, the joint declaration does not fully and specifically address the RFPs individually or by logical

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV023959: BURKE, et al. vs PACIFIC MODERN HOMES, INC., et al. 02/17/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Production in Department 53

grouping. Rather, each side simply states their contentions on a few broad issues, including whether PMHI was required to serve a privilege log with its initial responses. Plaintiff’s Separate Statement filed in support of the motion (“SS”) is fifty pages long, and the parties’ joint declaration contains only the equivalent of one page of text about the RFPs.

The meet-and-confer process is not intended to be some perfunctory formality. Rather, it “requires . . . a serious effort at negotiation and informal resolution.” (Townsend v. Superior Court (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1431, 1438.) Indeed, Code of Civil Procedure section 2016.040 specifies that a meet-and-confer declaration filed in support of a discovery motion “shall state facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt . . . to informally resolve each issue presented by the motion.” (Emphasis added.)

Accordingly, the hearing on this motion shall be continued a second time to require the parties to resume their meet-and-confer efforts.

Further, while the Court makes no final ruling on the motion here, in an effort to aid the parties’ continued meet-and-confer efforts, the Court provides the following guidance and its intended rulings on various issues:

1) The Court is inclined to overrule PMHI’s repeated objections that the RFPs are “neither relevant to the pending litigation nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.”

As to these objections, the parties are reminded that “any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action or to the determination of any motion made in that action, if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2017.010.) “In the absence of contrary court order, a civil litigant’s right to discovery is broad . . . [and] statutes governing discovery ‘must be construed liberally in favor of disclosure unless the request is clearly improper by virtue of well-established causes for denial.’ [Citation.]” (Williams v.

Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 541; see also Greyhound Corp. v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 355, 378 [“disclosure is a matter of right unless statutory or public policy considerations clearly prohibit it”].)

///

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV023959: BURKE, et al. vs PACIFIC MODERN HOMES, INC., et al. 02/17/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Production in Department 53

Furthermore, the party seeking to resist discovery based upon objections has the burden to justify its objections. (Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255 [citing Coy v. Superior Court (1962) 58 Cal.2d 220-221].) Indeed, 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.) “Any doubts regarding relevance are generally resolved in favor of allowing the discovery.” (Mercury Interactive Corp. v. Klein (2007) 158 Cal.App.4th 60, 98.)

2) With some exceptions, the Court is inclined to overrule the majority of PMHI’s repeated objections that the RFPs do not reasonably particularize the category of documents being sought, citing Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 222. However, the Court is inclined to sustain PMHI’s objection as to some RFPs, including as an illustration, RFPs 32, 38, and portions of RFP 34.

3) The Court is inclined to overruled PMHI’s “vague and ambiguous, uncertain, and overbroad” objections.

4) The Court is inclined to overrule PMHI’s “burdensome and oppressive” objections.

PMHI’s undue burden objections were required to be supported by a specific factual showing setting forth the amount of work necessary to respond to the subject discovery. (West Pico Furniture Co. v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 407, 417-418.) PMHI’s opposition lacks any factual showing whatsoever.

5) The Court is inclined to overruled PMHI’s “equally available” objections.

Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.220, subdivision (c) provides that when responding to interrogatories, the responding party has a duty to “make a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information by inquiry to other natural persons or organizations, except where the information is equally available to the propounding party.” (Emphasis added.) The Civil Discovery Act does not contain the same exception for requests for production of documents.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV023959: BURKE, et al. vs PACIFIC MODERN HOMES, INC., et al. 02/17/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Production in Department 53

6) In many instances, PMHI responds to a RFP by stating it “will produce all nonprivileged documents responsive to this request to the extent they are within [its] possession, custody, and control” when it did not assert an objection on the basis of a privilege. (See, e.g., SS 5:6-7.)

A responding party may respond to a request for production by objecting. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.010, subd. (a)(3).) However, to be effective, an objection must set forth the specific ground for objection, including claims of privilege or work product protection. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.240, subd. (b)(2).) Further, if an objection is based on a claim of privilege, “the particular privilege invoked [must] be stated.” (Ibid.)

Where PMHI responded as referenced above, without objecting on the basis of a specific privilege, the Court is inclined to require PMHI to provide a further response stating that it will produce all responsive documents aside from documents that would clearly constitute attorney-client privilege communications related to this action and thus, would presumably not be sought in the first instance.

7) The Court is inclined to require PMHI to provide further responses to several RFPs where it responded by stating its inability to comply, where the response does not comply with the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.230. (See, e.g., PMHI’s responses to RFPs 9 and 15, SS 11:3-5, 15:24-26.)

In this regard, a responding party may respond to a request for production by representing it lacks the ability to comply with the request. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.210, subd. (a)(2).) However, in doing so, the responding party must “affirm that a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry has been made in an effort to [respond,]” and “specify whether the inability to comply is because the particular item or category has never existed, has been destroyed, has been lost, misplaced, or stolen, or has never been, or is no longer in the possession, custody, or control of the responding party.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.230 [emphasis added].) Further, the responding party’s statement of inability to comply must “set forth the name and address of any natural person or organization known or believed by that party to have possession, custody, or control of that item or category of item.” (Ibid.)

8) Where PMHI has expressly objected to a RFP on the basis of the attorney-client privilege or attorney work product doctrine, the Court is inclined to require PMHI to

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV023959: BURKE, et al. vs PACIFIC MODERN HOMES, INC., et al. 02/17/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Production in Department 53

provide a privilege log which is “sufficiently specific to allow a determination of whether each withheld document is or is not [in] fact privileged” if it withholds documents that are responsive to the request. (Wellpoint Health Networks v. Super. Ct. (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 110, 130; see also Catalina Island Yacht Club v. Super. Ct. (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 1116, 1130.)

9) The Court is inclined to overrule PMHI’s Evidence Code section 1152 objection as that statute concerns the admissibility of evidence at trial, not discoverability. However, the Court reminds the parties that where a different valid privilege applies, such as the attorney-client privilege, the documents thereunder may still be undiscoverable.

10) The Court is inclined to overrule PMHI’s privacy, confidential consumer, and customer list/proprietary information objections interposed in response to RFP No. 41 since Plaintiff offered in the SS to redact any personally identifiable information. (See Snibbe v. Super. Ct. (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 184, 194-195 [“[P]atients’ privacy rights are not infringed if ‘neither disclosure of the patients’ identities nor disclosure of identifying medical information was requested.”]; see also Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civ. Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2025 Update) ¶ 8:329 [“Where the privacy rights of third persons are involved, the court may order their names deleted from the records disclosed . . . .”].)

11) Contrary to Plaintiff’s contention, the Court notes that when a responding party responds that they will produce responsive documents to a request for production, the Civil Discovery Act does not require the responding party to also demonstrate that a reasonable inquiry was conducted or provide information concerning the search that was performed. Similarly, if a responding party states that it is unable to comply with a request for production, and affirms that a diligent search and reasonable inquiry have been made, the Civil Discovery Act does not require the responding party to detail its search efforts in its response. To the extent a party seeks more information in such regard, it may be pursued by other means (such as by deposition), but not by seeking a further response to the RFP.

The above list is not intended to be exhaustive but to provide an indication of the Court’s preliminary view of some of the issues raised in this discovery motion. Though not exhaustive, the parties should be able to determine from the above, how the Court views other issues in the motion.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV023959: BURKE, et al. vs PACIFIC MODERN HOMES, INC., et al. 02/17/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Production in Department 53

No later than March 9, 2026, counsel for PMHI shall file a joint declaration (meaning a declaration drafted cooperatively with Plaintiff and defense counsel) detailing the further meet-and-confer efforts conducted by the parties, including the dates and lengths of such efforts, and clearly indicating which disputes have been resolved, and which issues, if any, remain unresolved, and why. The joint declaration must break down the issues by RFP or groupings of related RFPs.

The Court will consider the parties' requests for monetary sanctions based on the joint declaration and whether or not both parties have engaged in earnest and good faith meet-and-confer efforts to resolve the disputes. No further briefing or anything other than the joint declaration may be filed.

If the above-referenced continued hearing date is not convenient, or if the parties believe that they will need additional time to meet and confer, Plaintiff and defense counsel may meet and confer on a later hearing date and inform the clerk of the same no later than 4:00 p.m. on March 18, 2026.

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

[1] PMH filed a joint opposition to Plaintiff’s motions to compel further responses to RFPs, requests for admission, and form interrogatories.