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 alpha elevator control, inc.’s further responses to smartrise engineering, inc.’s requests for production of documents, set three 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 Alpha Elevator Control, Inc. (“Defendant” or “Alpha”) to its propounded Requests for Production of Documents, Set Three is ruled upon as follows.

On March 11, 2026, Smartrise propounded and served its Requests for Production of Documents, Set Three (Requests Nos. 4-138) on Alpha. (McNairy Decl., ¶ 9, Exh. F.) On April 10, 2026, Defendant served its objection only responses to the subject discovery. (McNairy Decl., ¶ 10, Exh. G.) 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 Requests.

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.

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

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’ 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, including, if necessary, a privilege log. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.240(c)(1); see Catalina Island Yacht Club v. Superior Court (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 1116, 1129-1130.) 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., Defendants argue that the Requests for Production of Documents are facially overbroad, unduly burdensome, oppressive, and disproportionate to the needs of this case. (Opp’n, pp. 17:21-18:2 [citing Thomas Decl., ¶¶ 44-46].) For reasons further explained in the Court’s concurrent ruling regarding Plaintiff’s motions to compel further responses from Defendant Thomas Parra to its propounded Requests for Production of Documents, the Court finds these objections warrant imposing certain

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 alpha elevator control, inc.’s further responses to smartrise engineering, inc.’s requests for production of documents, set three and for sanctions in Department 8A

limitations. Having considered the Parties’ arguments, the subject discovery at issue, and the provided responses, the Court finds it appropriate to impose a limitation to time, of “January 1, 2020 and the present.” The Court will also impose a limitation to one of Defendants’ “source code repositories.”

In light of these limitations, this effectively resolves Defendants’ objections based on vagueness, overbreadth and undue burden. Defendants must make a good faith effort to respond to the discovery based upon a reasonable interpretation of the requests.

Disposition

In sum, Plaintiff’s motion to compel Meline’s further responses to its propounded Requests for Production of Documents, Set Three is GRANTED. Consistent with the above, and subject to the limitations as described herein, Meline 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.

To the extent Plaintiff also purports to seek an order compelling the production of documents responsive to the subject requests, the motion is DENIED, without prejudice, as premature. A motion to compel production is only proper where a party has agreed to produce documents but has failed to do so in compliance with its statement. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.320(a).) Here, no such agreement has been made, thus this requested relief would be improper at this stage.

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

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 alpha elevator control, inc.’s further responses to smartrise engineering, inc.’s requests for production of documents, set three and for sanctions in Department 8A

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