SAINEZ, et al. vs BURNS, et al.

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.

TENTATIVE RULING

***NOTICE: EFFECTIVE APRIL 13, 2026, THIS DEPARTMENT HAS MOVED TO THE TANI G. CANTIL-SAKAUYE COURTHOUSE LOCATED AT 500 G STREET SACRAMENTO, CA. ALL MOTIONS NOTICED FOR DEPARTMENT 28 WILL BE HEARD IN DEPARTMENT 8C OF THE NEW COURTHOUSE. ALL PAPERS FOR THIS DEPARTMENT MUST BE FILED AT THIS NEW LOCATION AND WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED AT THE HALL OF JUSTICE. ALL HEARINGS WILL TAKE PLACE AT THIS NEW LOCATION***

Plaintiffs Geraldine Sainez, The Estate of Angela Mora, and Melchor Rodriguez’s (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) motion to compel Defendant Nina Burns (“Burns”) to serve further responses to Plaintiffs’ Form Interrogatories, Set One is ruled upon as follows.

The notice of motion does not provide notice of the Court’s tentative ruling system, as required by Local Rule 1.06. Moving counsel is directed to contact opposing counsel and advise of Local Rule 1.06 and the Court’s tentative ruling procedure and the manner to request a hearing. If

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV014885: SAINEZ, et al. vs BURNS, et al. 06/01/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One in Department 8C

moving counsel is unable to contact opposing counsel prior to the hearing, moving counsel is ordered to appear at the hearing by Zoom or in person.

This is a wrongful death action arising from an alleged motor vehicle collision that occurred on February 25, 2025 in Modesto. Plaintiffs allege that Burns was employed by Defendant Sacramento Television Stations Inc. and that she was acting in the course and scope of her employment at the time of the collision. The collision allegedly resulted in the death of Angela Mora. Plaintiffs Rodriguez and Sainez are the husband and daughter of Angela Mora, respectively.

The only interrogatory at issue in this motion is Form Interrogatory No. 4.1, which seeks information regarding any insurance policy through which the responding party “[was] or might be insured in any manner (for examples, primary, pro-rata, or excess liability coverage or medical expense coverage) for the damages, claims or actions that have arisen” from the subject incident. In her response, Burns asserted objections based on relevance, vagueness, confidentiality/trade secrets, insurer-insured privilege, and prematurity. Burns then responded, subject to the objections, by providing information about an auto liability policy through Old Republic Insurance Company with liability limits of $10 million.

Plaintiffs contend that Burns’ response is improper because she failed to provide information related to excess insurance coverage applicable to the subject collision. Plaintiffs argue that this information is discoverable, and that Burns has failed to show that the policies are proprietary or confidential. In opposition, Burns does not dispute the existence of excess insurance coverage that is not included in her current response to Form Interrogatory No. 4.1. However, Burns contends that the information sought by the interrogatory includes “confidential financial and commercially sensitive information, including policy limits, excess coverage structures, layering agreements, and other non-public insurance related information maintained confidentially by Defendants, their insurers, and their affiliates.” (Opp.

MPA, p. 5:2-5.) Burns asserts that she has informed Plaintiffs that she would disclose responsive information about the excess coverage upon the execution of a protective order.

Code of Civil Procedure section 2017.210 states:

A party may obtain discovery of the existence and contents of any agreement under which any insurance carrier may be liable to satisfy in whole or in part a judgment that may be entered in the action or to indemnify or reimburse for payments made to satisfy the judgment. This discovery may include the identity of the carrier and the nature and limits of the coverage. A party may also obtain discovery as to whether that insurance carrier is disputing the agreement’s coverage of the claim involved in the action, but not

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV014885: SAINEZ, et al. vs BURNS, et al. 06/01/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One in Department 8C

as to the nature and substance of that dispute. Information concerning the insurance agreement is not by reason of disclosure admissible in evidence at trial.

(Code Civ. Proc. § 2017.210.)

This statute “allows limited discovery of a defendant’s liability insurance coverage as a matter of right; this is to say, without the need for a threshold showing of relevancy and admissibility as is required under the general discovery statute, section 2017.010.” (Catholic Mutual Relief Society v. Superior Court (2007) 42 Cal.4th 358, 366-367.)

Burns essentially concedes that the excess insurance information is relevant and discoverable in this case, although Burns does note that she is “not in possession of any information or evidence that Plaintiffs’ damages would exceed the primary coverage limits of $10 million.” (Opp. MPA, p. 2:5-6.) To the extent Burns contends that the excess insurance information is not discoverable, the argument is rejected. Both Form Interrogatory No. 4.1 and Code of Civil Procedure section 2017.210 broadly apply to insurance information that “may” or “might” insure the defendant and/or be liable to satisfy a judgment on the plaintiff’s claims. Given that this case involves an alleged wrongful death, it is not unreasonable to conclude that the excess insurance may be applicable.

Burns’ opposition emphasizes that her counsel has repeatedly sought Plaintiffs’ counsel’s agreement on a protective order and has communicated a willingness to provide the requested information upon such execution. However, Burns did not file a motion for a protective order until May 19, 2026, two weeks after this motion was filed. That motion is currently on calendar for July 8, 2026, and the issues presented therein are not currently before the Court. With respect to the present motion, the Court notes that where a timely motion to compel further responses is filed, the burden is on the responding party to justify an objection. (Fairmont Ins.

Co., supra, 22 Cal.4th at p. 255, citing Coy v. Superior Court (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220-221.) Burns has not submitted any evidence with this motion to show that the requested information is confidential or proprietary, or that any of the other asserted objections are justified.

Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motion is GRANTED. Burns shall serve a verified further response to Form Interrogatory No. 4.1, without objections, by no later than June 11, 2026. However, Plaintiffs are ordered not to disseminate the information contained in the further response to anyone outside of the attorneys and staff at Plaintiffs’ counsel’s office who are working on this case until after the Court has adjudicated Burns’ motion for protective order.

Plaintiffs’ request for monetary sanctions is GRANTED in the reduced amount of $2,100.00, representing four hours at $525.00 per hour. Sanctions shall be paid to Plaintiffs’ counsel by no

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV014885: SAINEZ, et al. vs BURNS, et al. 06/01/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One in Department 8C

later than June 11, 2026, and if not paid by that date, Plaintiff may prepare for the Court’s signature a formal order granting the sanctions, which may then be enforced as a separate judgment. (Newland v. Superior Court (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 608, 615.)

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1019.5; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1312.)