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 compel larry hoang’s further responses to smartrise engineering, inc.’s requests for production of documents, 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 Larry Hoang (“Defendant” or “Hoang”) to its propounded Requests for Production of Documents, Set One is DENIED.

On December 5, 2025, Smartrise propounded and served its Requests for Production of Documents, Set One (Requests Nos. 1-77), on Hoang. (McNairy Decl., ¶ 8, Exh. A.) On January 5, 2026, Defendant filed his objection only responses to the subject discovery. (McNairy Decl., ¶ 9, Exh. B.)

As is further discussed in the Court’s concurrent ruling on Plaintiff’s motion to compel the further responses from Defendant Shannon Arney to its propounded Special Interrogatories, Set One, this motion to compel must be denied.

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.”].)

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

34-2021-00308769-CU-BC-GDS: Smartrise Engineering, Inc. vs. Brent Meline 05/29/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel compel larry hoang’s further responses to smartrise engineering, inc.’s requests for production of documents, set one and for sanctions in Department 8A

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 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,

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 compel larry hoang’s further responses to smartrise engineering, inc.’s requests for production of documents, set one and for sanctions in Department 8A

rule 3.1312(a), no further written order or further notice is necessary.