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 larry hoang’s further responses to smartrise engineering, inc.’s form 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 Larry Hoang (“Defendant” or “Hoang”) to its propounded Form Interrogatories, Set One is ruled upon as follows

On March 11, 2026, Smartrise propounded and served its Form Interrogatories, Set One (consisting of 2 Form Interrogatories), on Hoang. (McNairy Decl., ¶ 6, Exh. C.) On April 10, 2026, Defendant served his objection only responses to the subject discovery. (Id. at ¶ 7, Exh. D.) 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 Form 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 is further explained in the Court’s concurrent ruling on Defendants’ motion to quash Smartrise’s third-party subpoena, on March 6, 2026, the Court granted Defendants’

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

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 after February 20, 2026, the date which the Court found Plaintiff had made a code-compliant designation under section 2019.210. (3/6/26 Order.) As such, the Court is not persuaded by Defendants’ arguments based on section 2019.210. For similar reasons, the Court is not persuaded by Defendants arguments based upon the Trade Secret Designation, matching, or the “additional” trade secret category in the Sixth Amended Complaint. Having found that Plaintiff made a code-compliant designation pursuant to section 2019.210, and considering that the operative complaints were filed at the time of the Court’s March 6th ruling, the Court is not persuaded that these arguments would support denying this motion.

As to Defendants’ general objections based on privilege (e.g., attorney-client, privacy, etc.), Defendants do not indicate whether any information was actually withheld on these bases. While the Court will not overrule these privilege-based objections, to the extent Defendants withhold any information on the basis of privilege, Defendants must provide further responses that provide sufficient factual information for other parties to evaluate the merits of that claim. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.240.)

In general, an interrogatory may ask the responding party to identify documents as to which a privilege is claimed. The existence of a privileged document is not generally privileged. Therefore, an adequate response must include a description of the documents, even if the party has the right to object to a demand for their production. (See Hernandez v. Superior Court (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 285, 293.) Otherwise, if the response does not actually implicate privilege (i.e., the objection is inapplicable), the privilege-based objections must be removed from any further response.

Lastly, regarding Defendants’ general objections based on vagueness, overbreadth, undue burden, etc., as Smartrise aptly argues in its reply, Defendants’ opposition does not justify or otherwise address these objections, as it relates to this subject discovery. (Reply, p. 9, fn. 3 [“The opposition does not make these arguments as to the other types of discovery requests at issue, i.e., special interrogatories, form interrogatories, and requests for admission. (See Opposition at pp. 17-18.)”].) The burden is on the responding party to justify any objection or failure fully to answer the interrogatories. (Coy v. Superior Court (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220-221; Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Superior

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 larry hoang’s further responses to smartrise engineering, inc.’s form interrogatories, set one and for sanctions in Department 8A

Court (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255.) Having failed to justify these objections, the Court determines that these objections are waived.

Disposition

In sum, Plaintiff’s motion to compel Hoang’s further responses to its propounded Form Interrogatories, Set One, is GRANTED. Consistent with the above, Hoang shall serve verified further responses, no later than June 19, 2026, unless the Parties agree to a later date confirmed in writing.

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is 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 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

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 larry hoang’s further responses to smartrise engineering, inc.’s form interrogatories, set one and for sanctions in Department 8A

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.