In the Matter of the Estate of Jimme Lee Malloy

24PR002904: ESTATE OF: JIMME LEE MALLOY 10/15/2025 Hearing on Motion - Other Motion to Compel in Department 129

Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp- 13.pdf.

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 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 Petitioner and Movant Wanda Malloy-Lee seeks to compel deposition testimony from Respondent and Deponent Elaine Malloy and sanctions. The motion is opposed and DENIED as follows.

Background

Petitioner alleges that Respondent failed to appear at a properly noticed deposition set on 7/1/25. Petitioner alleges service was completed on 6/18/25 via overnight carrier. No objection was provided, nor was any response given to informal efforts to reschedule the deposition.

Respondent argues the discovery cutoff was 4/19/25, 30 days prior to the date initially set for trial (5/19/25). (Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.202(a).) Respondent thus maintains she was not obligated to participate in the deposition noticed on 6/18/25 and set for 7/1/2025.

Movant’s reply notes only that Respondent does not deny receiving the notice, not objecting, and not attending the deposition. Movant argues that the discovery

Movant seeks fees and costs totaling $4,956.00 ($4,620.00 in attorney’s fees, $276 in court reporter fees for cancelation, and $60 in court costs).

Legal Standard

Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450(a) permits a party to compel attendance at a properly noticed deposition where no valid objection was served. Subdivision (g)(1) mandates monetary sanctions for a successfully brought motion, unless the Court finds the one subject to such sanctions acted with substantial justification.

Discussion

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24PR002904: ESTATE OF: JIMME LEE MALLOY 10/15/2025 Hearing on Motion - Other Motion to Compel in Department 129

“Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, any party shall be entitled as a matter of right to complete discovery proceedings on or before the 30th day, and to have motions concerning discovery heard on or before the 15th day, before the date initially set for the trial of the action.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.020(a).)

The Court notes that the trial date of 5/19/25 was vacated on 5/1/25. “Except as provided in Section 2024.050, a continuance or postponement of the trial date does not operate to reopen discovery proceedings.” (Id., at subd. (b) [emphasis added].)

The Court notes Movant’s notice fails to state the “grounds for the issuance of the order” as required by California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1110(a). Movant’s motion is made pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450. (Motion, pg. 2, lns. 23-28 and pg. 3, lns. 1-28.) No other legal basis is provided in the notice or memorandum of points and authorities. Movant’s motion does not seek leave to complete discovery proceedings or have a motion concerning discovery heard, nor does Movant’s motion address or demonstrate good cause. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.050(a).)

The Court must deny the motion on the grounds that the notice and deposition at issue and this present motion concerning discovery were all made outside the 4/19/2025 deadline. (Id.) Further, Movant raises new arguments and issues in reply, namely that Movant has good cause to seek the deposition of Deponent under section 2024.050, which are rejected as Respondent was not given notice of this argument and has not been afforded an opportunity to reply. (See, e.g.. Neighbours v. Buzz Oates Enterprises (1990) 217 Cal. App. 3d 325, 335, fn. 8 [new arguments raised in reply generally will not be considered].)

Movant’s argument on reply, that Respondent has failed to show that “ a probate court lacks discretion under §?2024.050 (or authority under §?2025.450) to order a party deposition where the deponent willfully refused to appear after proper notice,” is rejected. (Reply, pg. 4, lns. 4-7.) Movant misconstrues (1) the fact that ‘proper’ notice was given, and (2) Respondent must demonstrate the “probate’s court’s lack of discretion to order a party deposition.” Movant fails to reconcile the position that ‘proper’ notice was given with the facts that Movant’s notice was outside the discovery timelines and that Movant has not sought leave to conduct further discovery.

Movant also incorrectly implies Respondent must demonstrate a lack of discretion by the probate court to order a deposition. Movant does not provide any legal basis for his position that a probate court is empowered to ignore Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.020(a) absent a motion seeking leave to pursue further discovery under § 2025.450. Thus, the motion is denied.

The Motion to Compel is DENIED. Both requests for sanctions are denied.

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24PR002904: ESTATE OF: JIMME LEE MALLOY 10/15/2025 Hearing on Motion - Other Motion to Compel in Department 129

Civ. Proc. §1019.5; CRC, Rule 3.1312.)