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’ Request for Production of Documents, 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 Production of Documents 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. (“STSI”) 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.

Plaintiffs move to compel further responses two requests: (1) Request No. 6, which seeks agreements between Burns and STSI related to Burns’ employment; and (2) Request No. 10, which seeks all insurance policies that do or may provide coverage to Burns for the subject incident.

A party may move to compel further responses to requests for production of documents on the grounds that a statement of compliance is incomplete, a representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive, or that an objection is without merit or too general. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.310(a).) The moving party must “set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.310(b)(1).) Where there is no issue of privilege of attorney work product, good cause may be shown “simply by a factspecific showing of relevance.” (Glenfed Dev. Corp. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1117.)

A party served with a request for production of documents shall respond with a statement of compliance, a representation of inability to comply, or an objection. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.210(a).) A statement of compliance must state that the production “will be allowed either in whole or in part, and that all documents or things in the demanded category that are in the possession, custody, or control of that party and to which no objection is being made will be included in the production.” (Code Civ.

Proc. § 2031.220.) A representation of inability to comply “shall affirm that a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry has been made in an effort to comply with that demand,” and must also specify the reason for the inability to comply. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.230.) If an objection is asserted, the responding party must identify with particularity any document to which an objection is being made and must clearly set forth the extent of and specific ground for the objection. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.240(b).)

Request No. 6

In responding to this request, Burns asserted objections on grounds that the request is overbroad,

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 Production of Documents in Department 8C

vague, ambiguous, seeks information subject to the right of privacy, and seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege/attorney work product. Burns then responded, subject to the objections, by stating that she would produce her employment agreement upon entry of a protective order.

Burns does not dispute that her employment agreement is discoverable in this case. Instead, Burns’ opposition emphasizes that her counsel has sought Plaintiffs’ counsel’s agreement to enter into a protective order before producing the agreement. 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 documents contain information that confidential or proprietary, or that any of the other asserted objections are justified.

Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motion is GRANTED with respect to Request No.

6.

Request No. 10

In responding to this request, Burns asserted objections on grounds that the request is overbroad, vague, ambiguous, fails to identify documents with particularity, and is oppressive and burdensome. Burns then responded, subject to the objections, by stating that she would produce “the declaration page of the applicable policy.” (See Opp. Sep. Stmt., p. 4:8-9.)

Given Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further responses to Plaintiffs’ Form Interrogatories, Set One on today’s calendar addressed whether Burns was obligated to disclose information about excess insurance, the Court presumes that the dispute over this request pertains to the excess policy. The Court notes that Burns’ response does not comply with Code of Civil Procedure sections 2031.220 or 2031.240(b) because it does not state whether Burns is complying with the request in whole or in part and does not identify documents being withheld on the basis of an objection.

In its ruling on Plaintiffs’ form interrogatory motion on today’s calendar, the Court concluded that the excess insurance information was discoverable. It follows that the policy itself is discoverable under Code of Civil Procedure section 2017.210.

Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motion is GRANTED with respect to Request No.

10.

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 Production of Documents in Department 8C

Disposition

Plaintiffs’ motion is GRANTED. Burns shall serve verified further responses to Plaintiffs’ Requests for Production of Documents, without objections, by no later than June 11, 2026. However, Plaintiffs are ordered not to disseminate the documents produced or the information contained in the documents or in the further responses 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 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.)