Smartrise Engineering, Inc. vs. Brent Meline

34-2021-00308769-CU-BC-GDS: Smartrise Engineering, Inc. vs. Brent Meline 05/29/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel shannon arney’s further responses to smartrise engineering, inc.’s special interrogatories, set one and for sanctions in Department 8A

Tentative Ruling

NO APPEARANCE REQUIRED

Plaintiff Smartrise Engineering, Inc.’s (“Plaintiff” or “Smartrise”) motion to compel the further responses from Defendant Shannon Arney (“Defendant” or “Arney”) to its propounded Special Interrogatories, Set One is DENIED.

On December 5, 2025, Smartrise propounded and served its Special Interrogatories, Set One (consisting of 19 Special Interrogatories), on Arney. (McNairy Decl., ¶ 8, Exh. A.) On January 5, 2026, Defendant served her objection only responses. (Id. at ¶ 9, Exh. B.) Defendant’s responses raised general objections based on the attorney-client privilege/work product; the joint defense doctrine; confidential information; proprietary information; privacy; trade secret privilege; vague, overbroad, burdensome and oppressive in scope; and relevance. Through this motion, Smartrise seeks to compel Defendant’s further responses to each of the Special Interrogatories.

Defendants Alpha Elevator Control, Inc., Thomas Parra, Ali Ezzeddine, Shannon Arney, Brent Meline, and Larry Hoang (collectively, “Defendants”) have filed a combined opposition to Smartrise’s pending motions to compel. In opposition Defendants argue (1) Smartrise’s discovery requests are all subject to objection because Smartrise did not comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 2019.210 before serving the discovery; (2) Smartrise’s Trade Secret Designation does not identify the trade secrete source code allegedly misappropriated from the T: Drive; (3) Defendants’ section 2019.210 challenge is not barred by the Court’s March 6, 2026, Order; (4) the Sixth Amended Complaint alleges an additional category of trade secret “design” which is not identified in the Trade Secret Designation; (5) business trade secret no. 1 remains impermissibly open ended; and (6) Smartrise’s document requests are objectionable for additional reasons.

In its combined reply, Smartrise argues (1) the Court has found Smartrise complied with section 2019.210; (2) the opposition makes a merits-based challenge to the Trade Secret Designation; (3) assuming the matching requirement existed, Defendants have not established a lack of matching; (4) Defendants’ argument regarding “design” trade secret is meritless; (5) Defendants’ argument regarding business trade secret no. 1 is meritless; and (6) Defendants’ arguments regarding the requests for production are unsupported by evidence.

As Smartrise seemingly concedes, and as is further explained in the Court’s concurrent ruling on Defendants’ motion to quash Smartrise’s third-party subpoena, on March 6,

34-2021-00308769-CU-BC-GDS: Smartrise Engineering, Inc. vs. Brent Meline 05/29/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel shannon arney’s further responses to smartrise engineering, inc.’s special interrogatories, set one and for sanctions in Department 8A

2026, the Court granted Defendants’ motion to quash a prior subpoena to CSA Group Testing and Certification Inc. (3/6/26 Order.) In its March 6, 2026, Order, the Court stated: “now that the Court has found Plaintiff has made a code-compliant designation under section 2019.210 as of February 20, 2026 [the date when the operative Complaints were filed], Plaintiff may serve a new subpoena on CSA Group.” (3/6/26 Order, p. 4 [emphasis added].)

Notably, Smartrise propounded and served the subject discovery before February 20, 2026, the date which the Court found Plaintiff had made a code-compliant designation under section 2019.210. (3/6/26 Order.) Pursuant to the plain language of Code of Civil Procedure section 2019.210, “before commencing discovery relating to the trade secret, the party alleging the misappropriation shall identify the trade secret with reasonable particularity . . .” (Emphasis added.) Courts have applied this requirement strictly. (See Advanced Modular Sputtering, Inc. v. Superior Court (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 826, 835 [“discovery can commence only after the allegedly misappropriated trade secrets have been identified with reasonable particularity, as required by section 2019.210.”].)

Disposition

As Plaintiff had not made a code-compliant designation under section 2019.210, before propounding the subject discovery, this motion to compel must be DENIED.

Defendants’ combined requests for judicial notice are unopposed and GRANTED for the limited purposes appropriate for judicial notice.

Defendants’ Application to file under seal records submitted in support of combined opposition to motions to compel further responses to requests for production of documents, interrogatories, and requests for admission (filed 5/15/26), is unopposed and GRANTED. The Court orders the identified supporting documents (attached to the Declaration of Michael J. Thomas in Support of Defendants’ Combined Opposition) and the unredacted version of the “Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Defendants’ Combined Opposition to Motion to Compel,” shall be filed under seal.

To request oral argument on this matter, you must call Department 8a at 916-874-5754 by 4:00 p.m., the court day before this hearing and notification of oral argument must be made to the opposing party/counsel. If no call is made, the tentative ruling becomes the order of the court. (Local Rule 1.06.)

Please check your tentative ruling prior to the next Court date at

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2021-00308769-CU-BC-GDS: Smartrise Engineering, Inc. vs. Brent Meline 05/29/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel shannon arney’s further responses to smartrise engineering, inc.’s special interrogatories, set one and for sanctions in Department 8A

www.saccourt.ca.gov prior to the above referenced hearing date.

If oral argument is requested, the parties may appear by Zoom with the links below:

To join by Zoom Link - https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16108301121 To join by phone dial (833) 568-8864, ID 16108301121

Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code section 68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp- 6a.pdf. Parties may contact Court-Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official 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 be forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

This minute order is effective immediately. Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312(a), no further written order or further notice is necessary.