LE vs OG BOYZ, INC.

22CV016180: LE vs OG BOYZ, INC. 05/28/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL (1) T-MOBILE USA, INC. TO PRODUCE RECORDS, AND (2) PLAINTIFF TO SIGN A CONSENT FORM AND PAY SANCTIONS; filed by PENDLETON PARTNERS, LP (Defendant) CRS# 621270612706 in Department 17

Tentative Ruling - 05/28/2026 Chad A. Stegeman

The Motion to Compel DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL (1) T-MOBILE USA, INC. TO PRODUCE RECORDS, AND (2) PLAINTIFF TO SIGN A CONSENT FORM AND PAY SANCTIONS filed by PENDLETON PARTNERS, LP on 12/17/2025 is Granted in Part.

The Motion of Defendant Pendleton Partners, LP (“Defendant”) to Compel T-Mobile Records and Sign Consent Form is GRANTED IN PART.

DISCUSSION The deposition subpoenas at issue were served on October 17, 2025 on T-Mobile USA for two phone numbers ending in 5222 and 1459 respectively. (Baer Decl. ¶ 10, Ex. I.) The Discovery Act does not expressly discuss the Court’s authority to compel a plaintiff to sign an authorization for release of records. Case law on this particular issue is limited and that which does exist is not clear. Defendant relies on two cases in support of its position that the Court has the authority to require that Plaintiff sign authorizations to release records: Miranda v. 21st Century Ins.

Co. (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 913 and Coats v. K-Mart Corporation (1989) 215 Cal. App. 3d 961. Plaintiff claims they are inapposite as they do not expressly concern this issue but in any event, are distinguishable as they involve medical releases. In Miranda, the Court upheld the dismissal of an action where the plaintiff failed to comply with the court's order to sign an authorization for release of records. (Miranda, supra, 117 Cal.App.4th at pp. 918-919.) However, in a footnote, the Court stated it was not clear why the defendant moved to compel an authorization rather than compel compliance with a subpoena. (Id. at p. 918, fn. 2.)

In Coats, the Court addressed whether the relation back doctrine applied to confer standing on a plaintiff who knowingly lacked it when the action was initially filed. (Coats, supra 215 Cal. App. 3d at p. 967.) While the Court noted in summarizing the factual and procedural history of the matter that the trial court had ordered the plaintiff to sign authorizations for the release of certain medical and psychiatric records, the Coats Court did not address whether such order was appropriate or not. (State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v.

Pietak (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 600, 614 [“Cases are not authority for propositions not considered therein.”].) Besides these cases, Defendant does not cite any other authority, and the Court is unaware of any, that specifically gives the court express authority under the Discovery Act to compel a plaintiff to sign an authorization for a release not in the context of medical records, which the 22CV016180: LE vs OG BOYZ, INC. 05/28/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL (1) T-MOBILE USA, INC.

TO PRODUCE RECORDS, AND (2) PLAINTIFF TO SIGN A CONSENT FORM AND PAY SANCTIONS; filed by PENDLETON PARTNERS, LP (Defendant) CRS# 621270612706 in Department 17 Court considers a valid distinction. Nevertheless, Plaintiff appeared willing to sign an authorization form, as evidenced by the fact that he apparently signed them for Cricket and T-Mobile in October 31, 2025. (Nelson Decl. ¶¶ 4, 6, Exs. 3-4.) As Defendant points out, however, the attachments reflect a release for both phone numbers as to Cricket, not T-Mobile, but with denial letters issued by AT&T. (Ibid.)

Further, the records appear relevant and material to the action. Defendant is entitled to discovery on the issue of Plaintiff’s whereabouts on the date of the incident to support its defense; whether it is able to obtain it in light of T-Mobile’s representations that both phone numbers are “not associated with the individual identified in the legal demand" is another matter. (Baer Decl., Ex. J.) The Court does find the breadth of the subpoenas broader than is necessary; the temporal scope for the records sought ranges from November 1, 2021 to December 1, 2021 when the subject incident of the robbery and shooting occurred on November 21, 2021. (Reply, pp. 3:22- 4:9.)

However, the various types of data sought appear reasonable given that Defendant is seeking the records to establish details of Plaintiff’s “whereabouts, plans, and involvement in the armed caravan and robbery[.]” (Reply, pp. 2:3-4, 25-4:9.) There does not appear to be merit to Plaintiff’s request that Plaintiff be afforded a ‘first look’ and opportunity to redact any records obtained from the subpoenas. As to the matter of sanctions, some measure of sanctions is merited here to compensate Defendant for having to bring this motion to compel.

Accordingly, monetary sanctions in the amount requested of $5,904.11 are awarded in the reduced amount of $1,050 against Plaintiff and counsel, jointly and severally, payable to Defendant forthwith. (Baer Decl., ¶ 13.) Plaintiff’s cross-request for sanctions is denied.

If a party does not timely contest the foregoing Tentative Ruling and appear at the hearing, the Tentative Ruling will become the order of the court.

HOW DO I CONTEST A TENTATIVE RULING?

THROUGH ECOURT Notify the Court and all the other parties no later than 4:00 PM one court day before the scheduled hearing, and briefly identify the issues you wish to argue through the following steps: 1. Log into eCourt Public Portal 2. Case Search 3. Enter the Case Number and select “Search” 4. Select the Case Name 5. Select the Tentative Rulings Tab 6. Select “Click to Contest this Ruling”

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

22CV016180: LE vs OG BOYZ, INC. 05/28/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL (1) T-MOBILE USA, INC. TO PRODUCE RECORDS, AND (2) PLAINTIFF TO SIGN A CONSENT FORM AND PAY SANCTIONS; filed by PENDLETON PARTNERS, LP (Defendant) CRS# 621270612706 in Department 17 7. Enter your Name and Reason for Contesting 8. Select “Proceed”

BY EMAIL Send an email to the DEPARTMENT CLERK and all the other parties no later than 4:00 PM one court day before the scheduled hearing. This will permit the department clerk to send invitations to counsel to appear remotely.

BOTH ECOURT AND EMAIL notices are required.