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

24CV023959: BURKE, et al. vs PACIFIC MODERN HOMES, INC., et al. 03/19/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel to Provide Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One in Department 53

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.

TENTATIVE RULING:

Self-represented 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, set one (“RFPs”) is ruled upon as follows.

This motion was continued a second time from February 17, 2026, to require the parties to fully meet and confer about the subject discovery.

The parties conducted additional meet-and-confer efforts and filed a joint declaration detailing their meet-and-confer efforts on March 9, 2026 (“Joint Declaration”). Pertinent to this motion, the parties state as follows concerning PMHI’s responses to the subject RFPs:

RFPs Nos. 3- 7; 9-31; 33, 35-37, 39-40, 42-50

11. For the above Requests for Production, PMHI has agreed to withdraw objections to the production (with the exception of privilege-based objections) and provide code compliant responses indicating that either the Responding Party will produce all documents in its possession, custody, or control, or alternatively, Responding Party will indicate that after a diligent search and reasonable inquiry, no such requested documents are in existence and will provide the additional information required under CCP § 2031.230 regarding the reason for PMHI’s inability to comply. To the extent that a privilege is still asserted, Responding Party will produce a Privilege Log as to any documents withheld on that basis.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV023959: BURKE, et al. vs PACIFIC MODERN HOMES, INC., et al. 03/19/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel to Provide Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One in Department 53

RFPs. Nos. 32 and 38

12. Propounding Party has agreed to withdraw Requests Nos. 32 and 38.

RFPs Nos. 1, 2, 8, 34, and 41

13. The Parties engaged in extensive discussion concerning Requests Nos. 1, 2, 8, 34, and 41 in an attempt to determine if an agreement could be reached narrowing the scope of the requests in such a manner acceptable to both parties. The substantive discussions concerning these specific RFPs is contained within Exhibit 1 attached to [the Joint] Declaration.

(Joint Decl. 3:13-4:2.)

The parties were ultimately unable to resolve their disputes as to RFPs Nos. 1, 2, 8, 34 and 41.

In light of the above, Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED IN PART insofar as PMHI shall respond to RFPs Nos. 3- 7, 9-31, 33, 35-37, 39-40, and 42-50, as agreed by the parties during their meet-and-confer sessions and as memorialized by the Joint Declaration.

As to RFPs Nos. 32 and 38, the motion is DENIED IN PART as moot since Plaintiff agreed to withdraw those requests.

The Court now discusses the RFPs that remain at issue.

BACKGROUND

This action arises out of Plaintiffs Griffin Burke and Gregory Burke (collectively “Plaintiffs”) purchase of a pre-engineered home kit manufactured by PMHI. Plaintiffs allege PMHI’s custom kit homes can only be purchased through one of its sales representatives/dealers, and that they contracted with Defendant Ludwick Construction,

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV023959: BURKE, et al. vs PACIFIC MODERN HOMES, INC., et al. 03/19/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel to Provide Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One in Department 53

LLC (“Ludwick Construction”) to purchase and install theirs. (First Am. Compl. (“FAC”) 2:4-19, ¶ 25.) Plaintiffs allege Defendant Anthony D. Colbert (“Colbert”) is the owner of PMHI. (FAC ¶ 4.) Plaintiffs allege Defendant Lisa Mastropieri and Defendant Curtis D. Ludwick are both co-owners of Ludwick Construction and are sales representatives of PMHI. (FAC ¶¶ 6, 7.) Plaintiffs further allege that the defendants are the agents, servants, and/or employees of the other defendants and that PMHI held Ludwick Construction out as its agent to Plaintiffs. (FAC ¶ 14, 27, 31.)

In essence, Plaintiffs allege that PMHI convinced them to use Ludwick Construction for the purchase and installation of a custom kit home and that Ludwick Construction abandoned the project after almost 2 years of delays, in which all Ludwick Construction did was dig a trench for a foundation after taking close to $100,000 in draws and payments for themselves and PMHI. (FAC 2:4-25.)

Plaintiffs filed the Complaint in this action on November 25, 2024, and the operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) on October 13, 2025. The FAC alleges causes of action for: (1) breach of written contract, (2) breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, (3) negligence, (4) construction defect/professional negligence against Ludwick Construction, (5) construction defect/professional negligence against PMHI, (6) fraud, (7) conversion, (8) false advertising/unfair competition against Ludwick Construction, (9) false advertising/unfair competition against PMHI, (10) recovery on contractor’s license bond, and (11) declaratory relief/duty to defend.

LEGAL STANDARD

A party responding to a request for production must respond separately to each request by any of the following:

(1) A statement that the party will comply with the particular demand . . . by the date set for the inspection, copying, testing, or sampling pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (c) of Section 2031.030 and any related activities.

(2) A representation that the party lacks the ability to comply with the demand . . . .

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV023959: BURKE, et al. vs PACIFIC MODERN HOMES, INC., et al. 03/19/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel to Provide Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One in Department 53

(3) An objection to the particular demand . . . .

(Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.210, subd. (a).)

“A statement that the [responding] party . . . will comply with the particular demand shall state that the production . . . will be allowed either in whole or in part, and that all documents or things in the demanded category that are in the possession, custody, or control of that party and to which no objection is being made will be included in the production.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.220.)

“A representation of inability to comply with the particular demand . . . shall affirm that a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry has been made in an effort to comply with that demand. This statement shall also 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. The statement shall 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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.230.)

A valid response to an inspection demand is to object to it. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.210, subd. (a)(3).) “If only part of a [demand] is objectionable, the response shall contain a statement of compliance, or a representation of inability to comply with respect to the remainder of that item or category.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.240, subd. (a).) And “[i]f an objection is based on a claim of privilege or a claim that the information sought is protected work product, the response shall provide sufficient factual information for other parties to evaluate the merits of that claim, including, if necessary, a privilege log.” (Id. at subd. (c)(1).)

The requesting party is entitled to obtain an order compelling further responses to a RFP if the responding party’s statement of compliance to a demand is incomplete, the responding party’s representation of inability to comply is inadequate or evasive, or the responding party has made an objection that is without merit or is too general. Such a motion must set forth “specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b)(1).)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV023959: BURKE, et al. vs PACIFIC MODERN HOMES, INC., et al. 03/19/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel to Provide Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One in Department 53

The burden of showing good cause “is met simply by a fact-specific showing of relevance.” (Glenfed Dev. Corp. v. Super. Ct. (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1117.) If “good cause” is shown by the moving party, the burden is on the responding party to justify any objections made to the demands. (Kirkland v. Super. Ct. (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 92, 98 [citing Coy v. Super. Ct. (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220-221].)

DISCUSSION

The Court now discusses the disputed RFPs in turn.

RFP No. 1

RFP No. 1 requests: “All DOCUMENTS that evidence, refer to, or relate to YOUR corporate formation, including articles of incorporation, bylaws, operating agreements, and any amendments thereto.” (Pl.’s Sep. Stmt. ISO Mot. (“SS”) 2:5-6.) The RFPs define “YOU” or “YOUR” to mean PMHI. (RFPs 2:25-26, attached as Ex. 1 to Pl.’s Decl. ISO Mot.)

PMHI responded:

Objection. Responding Party objects to this document request on the ground that it seeks information which is neither relevant to the pending litigation nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Responding Party further objects to this demand because it neither specifically describes any individual item that is being sought, nor does it reasonably particularize the category of items being sought as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.030(c)(1). As held by the court in Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v.

Sup.Ct. (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 222, it is not reasonable to describe documents by categories which bear no relationship to the manner in which the documents are kept and require the producing party to determine which of its extensive records fit a demand that asks for everything in its possession relating to a specific topic. Responding Party further objects to this demand on the grounds that it is

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV023959: BURKE, et al. vs PACIFIC MODERN HOMES, INC., et al. 03/19/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel to Provide Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One in Department 53

vague, ambiguous, uncertain, overbroad, burdensome and oppressive and that it is not sufficiently limited in time or scope.

(SS 2:7-20.)

Plaintiff argues that a further response is necessary because the FAC alleges that Colbert, as an officer of PMHI, made material misrepresentations to Plaintiff’s about Ludwick Construction’s qualifications, and “[c]orporate formation documents are directly relevant to establishing Colbert’s authority to bind PMHI and the scope of PMHI’s business operations[,]” and “agency, authority, and regulatory compliance.” (SS 2:21- 3:1; Meet & Confer Emails at p. 5, attached as Ex. 1 to Joint Decl.) Plaintiff further argues that the request is sufficiently particular as it specifically identifies categories of corporate formation documents.” (SS 3:1-2.)

PMHI rejoins that “[i]ssues relating to historical corporate governance and formation are not relevant,” Plaintiff’s agency allegations have nothing to do with corporation formation documents, and the request is not limited to a relevant time period. (Meet & Confer Emails at pp. 1, 3.)

With the exception of PMHI’s objection that the request is not limited to a reasonable time period, the Court overrules PMHI’s objections and finds that a further response is required.

While the RFP could have been more carefully crafted so as to better describe the precise categories of documents sought by Plaintiff, the Court finds that it is sufficient to enable PMHI to understand the type of documents being requested, and, notably, the opposition fails to proffer any argument to the contrary. Thus, PMHI’s objection based on Plaintiff’s failure to identify the documents sought with reasonable particularity is overruled.

For similar reasons, PMHI’s objections based on the RFPs being “vague, ambiguous, uncertain, [and] overbroad” are insufficient to require denial of the present motion. Code of Civil Procedure section 2017.010 specifically provides that parties “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,

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV023959: BURKE, et al. vs PACIFIC MODERN HOMES, INC., et al. 03/19/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel to Provide Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One in Department 53

if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence,” and case law further confirms that discovery in California is broad, with any dispute generally to be resolved in favor of disclosure unless there is a well-established ground for denial. (See, e.g., Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 541.) Additionally, published authority indicates that information is considered relevant “if it might reasonably assist a party in evaluating its case, preparing for trial, or facilitating a settlement.” (Lipton v. Superior Court (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1599, 1611-1612.) The Court finds that RFP No. 1 seeks information that is sufficiently relevant to justify the discovery, especially in light of California’s liberal standards. PMHI’s overbroad, vague, and ambiguous objections are overruled.

PMHI’s “burdensome and oppressive” objections are also overruled. Undue burden objections must be accompanied 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 is devoid of any factual showing whatsoever.

However, the Court is persuaded by PMHI’s objection that the request is not sufficiently limited in time. The Court notes that Plaintiff limits RFP No. 2 to the time period from 2020 to the present. The Court finds that such a time limit is reasonable and should be applied to RFP No. 1 as well. Accordingly, PMHI’s time limit objection is sustained in part to be limited to the same time period.

PMHI must provide a further verified response to this request without objections for the time period of 2020 to the present.

RFP No. 2

RFP No. 2 requests: “All DOCUMENTS that identify YOUR officers, directors, shareholders, member managers, and key employees from 2020 to present.” (SS 3:5- 6.)

PMHI responded:

Objection. Responding Party objects to this document request on the ground that it seeks information which is

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV023959: BURKE, et al. vs PACIFIC MODERN HOMES, INC., et al. 03/19/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel to Provide Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One in Department 53

neither relevant to the pending litigation nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Responding Party further objects to this demand because it neither specifically describes any individual item that is being sought, nor does it reasonably particularize the category of items being sought as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.030(c)(1). As held by the court in Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Sup.Ct. (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 222, it is not reasonable to describe documents by categories which bear no relationship to the manner in which the documents are kept and require the producing party to determine which of its extensive records fit a demand that asks for everything in its possession relating to a specific topic.

Responding Party further objects to this demand on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, uncertain, overbroad, burdensome and oppressive and that it is not sufficiently limited in time or scope.

(SS 3:7-20.)

Plaintiff argues that a further response is necessary because “[i]nformation about officers, directors, and key employees is necessary to determine the scope of corporate knowledge and authority, particularly regarding representations made about Ludwick[, and t]he timeframe is reasonable given that the relationship with Ludwick began in 2020.” (SS 3:21-25.) Plaintiff further argues that “[t]he request is precisely defined and adequately particularized.” (SS 3:25-26.)

PMHI rejoins that its failure to reasonably particularize objection is applicable “because of the request for all documents that identify PMHI’s officers, directors, shareholders, etc.” (Meet & Confer Emails at p. 3.) PHMI offered to provide its statements of information filed with the Secretary of State’s office from 2020 to the present and suggested Plaintiff then proceed with further, targeted discovery, if desired. (Ibid.)

The Court overrules each of PMHI’s objections for the reasons stated above under RFP No.

1. This request is limited to a reasonable time period – 2020 to the present.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV023959: BURKE, et al. vs PACIFIC MODERN HOMES, INC., et al. 03/19/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel to Provide Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One in Department 53

PMHI must provide a further verified response to this request without objections.

RFP No. 8

RFP No. 8 requests: “All DOCUMENTS relating to YOUR knowledge of LUDWICK’s experience building homes in South Lake Tahoe, California.” (SS 9:11-12.) The RFPs define “LUDWICK” to mean “Ludwick Construction, LLC, Lisa Mastropieri, and Curtis Ludwick, individually and collectively.” (RFPs 3:1-2, attached as Ex. 1 to Pl.’s Decl. ISO Mot.)

PMHI responded:

Objection. Responding Party objects to this document request on the ground that it seeks information which is neither relevant to the pending litigation nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Responding Party further objects to this demand because it neither specifically describes any individual item that is being sought, nor does it reasonably particularize the category of items being sought as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.030(c)(1). As held by the court in Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v.

Sup.Ct. (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 222, it is not reasonable to describe documents by categories which bear no relationship to the manner in which the documents are kept and require the producing party to determine which of its extensive records fit a demand that asks for everything in its possession relating to a specific topic. As the Calcor court also noted, the use of demands for inspection or production as a device to determine whether documents exist, rather than as a tool to obtain the production of documents, is often improper.

Id. Responding Party further objects to this demand on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, uncertain, overbroad, burdensome and oppressive and that it is not sufficiently limited in time or scope.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV023959: BURKE, et al. vs PACIFIC MODERN HOMES, INC., et al. 03/19/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel to Provide Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One in Department 53

(SS 9:13-10:2.)

Plaintiff argues a further response is necessary because a central allegation of the FAC is that PMHI directed Plaintiffs to select Ludwick Construction as their sales representative and assured Plaintiffs it had the necessary skill and experience to build their home in South Lake Tahoe. (SS 10:3-11.) Plaintiff further argues that the requested documents bear directly on Plaintiffs’ fraud, misrepresentation, and negligent supervision claims. (Meet & Confer Emails at p. 5.)

PMHI responds that this request “is too broad and unspecific.” (Meet & Confer Emails at p. 3.)

PMHI’s objections are overruled. The request seeks relevant documents, is sufficiently particularized, and is not vague, ambiguous, uncertain, overbroad, or burdensome/oppressive.

PMHI must provide a further verified response to this request without objections.

RFP No. 34

RFP No. 34 requests: “All DOCUMENTS relating to YOUR financial condition and ability to complete contracts, including: a. Financial statements from 2020 to present; b. Bank records showing fund availability; c. Credit reports or financial assessments.” (SS 31:18- 20.)

PMHI responded:

Objection. Responding Party objects to this document request on the ground that it seeks information which is neither relevant to the pending litigation nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. In addition, this request seeks the confidential commercial information and financial information of Responding Party in violation of the right of privacy under the California Constitution. Responding Party further objects to this demand because it neither specifically describes any

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV023959: BURKE, et al. vs PACIFIC MODERN HOMES, INC., et al. 03/19/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel to Provide Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One in Department 53

individual item that is being sought, nor does it reasonably particularize the category of items being sought as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.030(c)(1). As held by the court in Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Sup.Ct. (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 222, it is not reasonable to describe documents by categories which bear no relationship to the manner in which the documents are kept and require the producing party to determine which of its extensive records fit a demand that asks for everything in its possession relating to a specific topic. Responding Party further objects to this demand on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, uncertain, overbroad, burdensome and oppressive and that it is not sufficiently limited in time or scope.

(SS 31:18-32:9.)

Plaintiff seeks a further response to this request, arguing that “[f]inancial condition and ability to complete contracts is directly relevant to PMHI’s business practices, ability to fulfill contractual obligations, and damages calculations[,]” and PMHI’s “privacy objection lacks [a] proper foundational showing and can be addressed through protective orders if necessary.” (SS 32:10-16.) In further meet-and-confer efforts, Plaintiff agreed to “limit the request to profit and loss statements from 2022 to 2024.” (Meet & Confer Emails at p. 5.)

PMHI rejoins that Plaintiff’s proposed limitation “is still confidential information[,]” and the FAC does not allege that “PMHI lacked the financial ability to complete any contract, so . . . the relevancy of the requested information is in doubt.” (Meet & Confer Email at p. 4.)

Plaintiff did not directly reply to PMHI’s referenced arguments in their further meet-andconfer efforts.

Even as limited by Plaintiff in the parties’ further meet-and-confer efforts, the Court is persuaded by PMHI’s arguments and sustains PMHI’s relevance, failure to reasonably particularize, and corporate privacy objections.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV023959: BURKE, et al. vs PACIFIC MODERN HOMES, INC., et al. 03/19/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel to Provide Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One in Department 53

The FAC does not allege that PMHI lacked the financial ability to fulfill its contractual obligations, and Plaintiff has not shown how the documents sought in the request are otherwise relevant to the litigation as framed by the operative pleading.

Further, while corporations do not have a right of privacy protected by the California Constitution, they do have a lesser right to privacy than that held by human beings. (SCC Acquisitions, Inc. v. Superior Court (2015) 243 Cal.App.4th 741, 755-756.) In deciding whether or not a corporate privacy right prohibits discovery, the Court employs a “balancing test,” where it compares “[t]he discovery’s relevance to the subject matter of the pending dispute” against “the corporate right of privacy.” (Id. at p. 756.) Here, the Court finds that such balance weighs in favor of PMHI’s corporate right of privacy as Plaintiff has not demonstrated how the requested documents are relevant to the case.

Finally, the Court finds that the request is not sufficiently particularized.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is denied as to this request, and no further response is necessary.

RFP No. 41

RFP No. 41 requests: “All DOCUMENTS relating to OTHER customers who have had disputes with LUDWICK or problems with LUDWICK’s performance.” (SS 38:6-7.)

PMHI responded:

Objection. Responding Party objects to this document request on the ground that it seeks information which is neither relevant to the pending litigation nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Responding Party further objects to this demand on the grounds that it seeks confidential information of consumers and customers and infringes upon the right of privacy of third parties. In addition, this request seeks the confidential commercial information of Responding Party in the form of customer lists and other proprietary information. Responding Party further objects to this demand because it neither

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV023959: BURKE, et al. vs PACIFIC MODERN HOMES, INC., et al. 03/19/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel to Provide Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One in Department 53

specifically describes any individual item that is being sought, nor does it reasonably particularize the category of items being sought as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.030(c)(1). As held by the court in Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Sup.Ct. (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 222, it is not reasonable to describe documents by categories which bear no relationship to the manner in which the documents are kept and require the producing party to determine which of its extensive records fit a demand that asks for everything in its possession relating to a specific topic.

Responding Party further objects to this demand on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, uncertain, overbroad, burdensome and oppressive and that it is not sufficiently limited in time or scope. Notwithstanding the objection: The Responding Party has made a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry and has been unable to identify documents that it believes would be responsive to this request.

(SS 38:8-39:2.)

Plaintiff seeks a further response to this request, arguing that “[i]nformation about customer disputes with Ludwick is directly relevant to establishing PMHI’s knowledge of Ludwick’s performance deficiencies and pattern of misconduct[,]” and PMHI’s privacy objection is “insufficient without proper foundational showing.” (SS 39:3-6.) Plaintiff further argues that “[p]rivacy concerns can be addressed through redaction of personally identifiable information while preserving substantive dispute information.” (SS 39:6-7.)

PMHI rejoins that it stands by its confidential consumer information and third party right to privacy objections. (Meet & Confer Email at p. 4.)

Plaintiff replies that such concerns are “routinely address[ed] . . . through redaction or protective orders,” and offered to “agree to redactions of any social security number or financial information.” (Meet & Confer Email at pp. 2-3.) Plaintiff states, however, that he is entitled “to the names and contact information since [the customers] are potential witnesses.” (Id. at p. 3.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV023959: BURKE, et al. vs PACIFIC MODERN HOMES, INC., et al. 03/19/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel to Provide Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One in Department 53

In response, PMHI states that Plaintiff could obtain the names and contact information of customers who have had disputes with Ludwick by propounding a special interrogatory asking for that information, which would avoid the need for PMHI to disclose documents relating to other customers. (Meet & Confer Email at pp. 1-2.)

“Discovery may be obtained of the identity and location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter . . . .” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2017.010.) Documents in PMHI’s possession, custody, or control concerning other customer disputes with Ludwick Construction or its performance are relevant to this action. Thus, the identity and contact information of customers in any such documentation is discoverable under Code of Civil Procedure section 2017.010, unless privileged. (See Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civ. Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2025 Update) ¶¶ 8:81, et seq.)

Here, PMHI argues the request implicates third party privacy rights.

The California Supreme Court has articulated the analytical framework for balancing the intersection of privacy and discovery. (Puerto v. Superior Court (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1242, 1250.)

First, a claimant must possess a “legally protected privacy interest.” [Citation.] Second, the claimant must have a reasonable expectation of privacy under the particular circumstances, including the customs, practices, and physical settings surrounding particular activities. [Citation.] Third, the invasion of privacy must be serious in nature, scope, and actual or potential impact. Trivial invasions do not create a cause of action. [Citation.] If there is a reasonable expectation of privacy and the invasion of privacy is serious, then the court must balance the privacy interest at stake against other competing or countervailing interests, which include the interest of the requesting party, fairness to the litigants in conducting the litigation, and the consequences of granting or restricting access to the information. [Citation.]

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV023959: BURKE, et al. vs PACIFIC MODERN HOMES, INC., et al. 03/19/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel to Provide Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One in Department 53

(Id. at pp. 1250-1251 [citing Pioneer Electronics (USA), Inc. v. Superior Court (2007) 40 Cal.4th 360, 370-371 and Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Association (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1, 35-37].)

People have a legitimate expectation of privacy in their addresses and telephone numbers. (Puerto, supra, at p. 1252.) However, such information “is not particularly sensitive, as it is merely contact information, not medical or financial details, political affiliations, sexual relationships, or personnel information.” (Id. at p. 1253.) Contact information for people having knowledge of relevant information “is basic civil discovery.” (Id. at p. 1254.) “[I]t is only under unusual circumstances that the courts restrict discovery of nonparty witnesses’ . . . contact information.” (Ibid.) And PMHI has not shown that any such circumstances exist here. (See Puerto, supra, at pp. 1254- 1255 [discussing circumstances under which courts have restricted the discovery of nonparty contact information, including “true danger” to the nonparty].)

Since the Court finds that no serious invasion of third-party privacy is implicated by RFP No. 41, no balance of opposing interests is required. (Puerto, supra, at p. 1256.) However, even if a balancing of interests was required, the Court finds that a person’s privacy interest in their contact information is outweighed by Plaintiff’s competing interests in this case, i.e., the prosecution of its case.

PMHI’s other objections to this RFP are overruled. The request seeks relevant information, is sufficiently particularized, and is not vague, ambiguous, uncertain, overbroad, or burdensome/oppressive. To the extent PMHI’s “confidential information of consumers” objection was meant to be distinct from a third-party privacy objection, PMHI has not satisfied its burden as to such an objection. The Court notes that special notice requirements exist when “personal records” of a “consumer” are subpoenaed from a nonparty under Code of Civil Procedure section 1985.3, subdivision (e), but those protections do not apply when discovery is sought from a party.

PMHI must provide a further verified response to this request without objections and in compliance with Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.230. PMHI may redact any personal identifying information of any customer (such as financial information or social security number) contained in any responsive documents with the exception of the person’s contact information.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV023959: BURKE, et al. vs PACIFIC MODERN HOMES, INC., et al. 03/19/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel to Provide Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One in Department 53

CONCLUSION

For the stated reasons, Plaintiff’s motion is granted in part and denied in part.

The motion is granted in part as to RFPs Nos. 3- 7, 9-31, 33, 35-37, 39-40, and 42-50 in that PMHI shall respond to these RFPs as agreed by the parties during their meet-andconfer sessions and as memorialized by their Joint Declaration.

The motion is denied in part as moot as to RFPs Nos. 32 and 38 since Plaintiff agreed to withdraw those requests.

The motion is granted in part as to RFPs Nos. 1, 2, 8, and 41. PMHI shall provide further verified responses to these RFPs as discussed herein no later than April 17, 2026, unless the parties agree in writing to a later date.

The motion is denied in part as to RFPs No.

34.

The parties’ respective requests for monetary sanctions are denied in light of their further meet-and-confer efforts and the mixed outcome of the motion as to the remaining disputed RFPs.

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1019.5; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1312.)