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. 05/28/2026 Hearing on Motion for Protective Order in Department 16D

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.

*** NOTICE: EFFECTIVE APRIL 13, 2026, THIS DEPARTMENT HAS MOVED TO THE TANI G. CANTIL-SAKAUYE COURTHOUSE LOCATED AT 500 G. ST. SACRAMENTO, CA. ALL MOTIONS NOTICED FOR DEPARTMENT 53 WILL BE HEARD IN DEPARTMENT 16D OF THE NEW COURTHOUSE. ALL PAPERS FOR THIS DEPARTMENT MUST BE FILED AT THIS NEW LOCATION AND WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED AT THE HALL OF JUSTICE. ALL HEARINGS WILL TAKE PLACE AT THIS NEW LOCATION. PARTIES MAY CONTINUE TO APPEAR REMOTELY IN DEPARTMENT 16D UNLESS SPECIFICALLY ORDERED OTHERWISE. ***

TENTATIVE RULING: Defendant CM Vantage Specialty Insurance Company’s motion for protective order is denied.

In this action, Plaintiffs Gregory and Griffin Burke allege they were defrauded in connection with a construction project for a family home. With respect to Defendant, Plaintiffs allege a cause of action for declaratory relief. They allege that Defendant owes a duty to defend Ludwick Construction, LLC, in connection with the claims asserted against it in this action.

By way of the instant motion, Defendant seeks a protective order relieving them of any duty to respond any further to Plaintiffs’ requests for production, form interrogatories and requests for admissions. According to Defendant, the subject discovery will not lead to the discovery or admissible evidence because the discovery relates to Defendant’s coverage determination which are not issues in a declaratory relief action.

CCP § 2017.020(a) allows a court to limit discovery if it determines that “the burden, expense, or intrusiveness of that discovery clearly outweighs the likelihood that the information sought will lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” (CCP § 2017.020(a).) Defendant has made no such showing here. To that end, Defendant seeks a blanket order relieving them from responding any further to Plaintiffs’ written discovery. Defendant does not specifically identify any request in its memorandum of points and authorities and simply states in a conclusory manner that none of the written discovery would be relevant because apparently it relates to Defendant’s coverage determinations with respect to Ludwick Construction, LLC.

Yet Defendant does not refer the Court to any specific individual discovery request within the set of discovery at issue, much less argue why such specific requests should be constrained by a

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV023959: BURKE, et al. vs PACIFIC MODERN HOMES, INC., et al. 05/28/2026 Hearing on Motion for Protective Order in Department 16D

protective order. While Defendant attaches the discovery requests to it’s counsel’s declaration, simply doing so does not satisfy Defendant’s burden on this motion. The Court need not and will not scour through the requests to identify which requests purport to seek information to which Defendant claims Plaintiffs are not entitled to. Such was Defendant’s burden as moving party. On this basis alone the motion is denied.

Furthermore, the Court notes that Defendant has in fact already provided responses to the subject discovery. (Fales Decl. Exhs. B and D.) Indeed, Defendant’s style their vague request for a protective order as alleviating the need for any “further” responses or production of documents. Such is not a ripe issue. At this point, Defendant would not be required to provide any further responses unless Plaintiffs successfully move to compel further responses. In essence, Defendant is seeking an advisory opinion from the Court will respect to the sufficiency of its responses to Plaintiffs’ discovery.

The Court will not issue such an advisory opinion as it is improper. (See generally, Coleman v. Dept. of Personnel Administration (1991) 526 Cal.3d 1102, 1126 “[t]he rendering of advisory opinions falls within neither the functions nor jurisdiction of this court”.) Defendant will be permitted to raise any arguments set forth in the instant motion in response to a motion to compel in the event Plaintiffs choose to bring one. Had Defendants believed that they had a basis for a protective order to prevent responding in the first instance, their remedy was to bring a motion for protective order and satisfy their burden in lieu of and prior to serving such response.

The Court notes that Defendant also contends that its pending demurrer provides an additional basis for a protective order. Again, however, Defendant has already responded to the discovery. Further, the pendency of a demurrer does not relieve a party from responding to discovery. Indeed, a defendant who challenges a pleading by filing a demurrer must still respond to discovery even if the demurrer is ultimately dispositive. (Budget Finance Plan v. Superior Court (1973) 34 Cal.App.3d 794, 797; Mattco Forge, Inc. v. Arthur Young & Co. (1990) 223 Cal.App.3d 1429, 1436; Union Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Sup. Ct. (1978) 80 Cal.App.3d 1, 12.) But again, Defendant has responded to the discovery and the Court will not issue an advisory opinion as to whether its responses are appropriate.

Defendant’s motion is denied.

Given the above, the Court need not and does not address any of the specific arguments raised in support or, or in opposition to the motion, to the extent they were not addressed above.

The notice of motion does not provide notice of the Court’s tentative ruling system as required by Local Rule 1.06(D). Defendant’s counsel is ordered to notify Plaintiffs immediately of the tentative ruling system and to be available at the hearing in person,

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV023959: BURKE, et al. vs PACIFIC MODERN HOMES, INC., et al. 05/28/2026 Hearing on Motion for Protective Order in Department 16D

via Zoom or by telephone, in the event Plaintiffs appear without following the procedures set forth in Local Rule 1.06(B).

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