MILLER vs HIDALGO, et al.

24CV025212: MILLER vs HIDALGO, et al. 04/28/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Production of Documents in Department 16D

Tentative Ruling

NOTICE:

Consistent with Local Rule 1.06(B), any party requesting oral argument on any matter on this calendar must comply with the following procedure:

To request limited oral argument, on any matter on this calendar, you must call the Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-2615 by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the hearing and advise opposing counsel. At the time of requesting oral argument, the requesting party shall leave a voice mail message: a) identifying themselves as the party requesting oral argument; b) indicating the specific matter/motion for which they are requesting oral argument; and c) confirming that it has notified the opposing party of its intention to appear and that opposing party may appear via Zoom using the Zoom link and Meeting ID indicated below. If no request for oral argument is made, the tentative ruling becomes the final order of the Court.

Unless ordered to appear in person by the Court, parties may appear remotely either telephonically or by video conference via the Zoom video/audio conference platform with notice to the Court and all other parties in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure §367.75. Although remote participation is not required, the Court will presume all parties are appearing remotely for non-evidentiary civil hearings.

The Department 16D Zoom Link is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16146506749 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 4650 6749. To appear on Zoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID referenced above. NO COURTCALL APPEARANCES WILL BE ACCEPTED.

Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code §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

24CV025212: MILLER vs HIDALGO, et al. 04/28/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Production of Documents in Department 16D

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 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 IN SACRAMENTO, CA. ALL MOTIONS NOTICED FOR DEPARTMENT 53 WILL BE HEARD IN DEPARTMENT 16D 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. PARTIES MAY CONTINUE TO APPEAR REMOTELY IN DEPARTMENT 16D UNLESS SPECIFICALLY ORDERED OTHERWISE. ***

Defendant in pro per Hidalgo’s “motion to compel production of documents” from plaintiffs Miller and KDC Holdings, LLC 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 defendant is directed to contact opposing counsel and advise him/her of Local Rule 1.06 and the Court’s tentative ruling procedure and the manner to request a hearing. If moving defendant is unable to contact opposing counsel prior to the hearing, moving defendant is ordered to appear at the hearing in person, by Zoom or by telephone.

Defendant failed to comply with CRC Rule 2.111(3).

Defendant’s “Supplemental Declaration” filed on 4/15/2026 fails to comply with CRC Rule 3.1110(b)(3)-(4).

The proof of service attached to defendant’s underlying discovery requests and the proof of service filed on 4/15/2026 relating to her “supplemental declaration” fail to comply with Code of Civil Procedure §1013a, requiring the “exact title” of each document being served.

Factual Background

In this action, plaintiffs allege that defendants fraudulently transferred a motor vehicle’s title from plaintiffs to themselves. No trial date has been set.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV025212: MILLER vs HIDALGO, et al. 04/28/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Production of Documents in Department 16D

Moving Papers. Although this motion is generically framed as one seeking “to compel production of documents by plaintiffs,” the Notice of Motion actually specifies that defendant Hidalgo is moving pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §2031.300 to compel plaintiffs “to serve verified responses without objection to Defendant's Request for Production of Documents, Set One” on the ground that “Plaintiffs failed to serve a timely response, waiving all objections except [sic] privilege.” (Not. of Mot., p.2:3-7.) Defendant does not seek monetary sanctions but does seek “appropriate issue, evidence, or terminating sanctions as authorized by California Code of Civil Procedure §2023.030.” (Id., at p.2:11-12; Decl., p.7:21-25.)

The Court notes that attached to defendant’s moving declaration as Exhibit A is a copy of the underlying Requests for Production (“RFP”) (along with proof of personal service on 10/21/2025) and as Exhibit C is a copy of plaintiffs’ own responses to defendant’s RFP (along with proof of service showing they were mailed to defendant on 11/20/2025). Nevertheless, defendant’s moving points & authorities assert that plaintiffs failed to serve any response to the RFP on or before the 30-day deadline expiring on 11/20/2025 and thus all objections “except [sic] for [those] based upon privilege” have therefore been waived. (Mov. MPA, p.4:1-9.)

Opposition. Plaintiffs oppose, arguing this motion should be denied in its entirety because they “timely served responses to Defendant’s [RFP] prior to the filing of the motion.” The opposition adds that defendant is not entitled to any sanctions but since this motion was not substantially justified inasmuch as plaintiffs provided timely responses, plaintiffs are entitled to monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,050 for having to oppose this motion.

Discussion

As noted above, Exhibit A to defendant’s moving declaration indicates the underlying Requests for Production (“RFP”) were personally served on plaintiffs on 10/21/2025 and as such, plaintiffs’ responses to these RFP were (in the absence of any extension of time) due to be served no later than 11/20/2025. While defendant’s moving points & authorities assert that plaintiffs failed to serve any response to the RFP on or before this 30-day deadline expiring on 11/20/2025, Exhibit C to defendant’s moving declaration is a copy of plaintiffs’ own responses to defendant’s RFP.

These responses themselves appear to have been signed by plaintiffs’ counsel on 11/20/2025 and attached thereto is a proof of service specifically attesting to their being mailed to defendant Hidalgo (and others) on 11/20/2025. Thus, this proof of service demonstrates that plaintiffs’ responses were timely served. This is also consistent with Paragraph 4 of the Brown Declaration in opposition, which similarly attests that plaintiffs’ responses were served “via US mail” on 11/20/2025. No evidence is presented that the proof of service attesting to mail service on 11/20/2025 is inaccurate.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV025212: MILLER vs HIDALGO, et al. 04/28/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Production of Documents in Department 16D

Given that the evidence indicates plaintiffs timely served via U.S. mail their responses to the RFP on 11/20/2025, there are presently no grounds for any order directing plaintiffs to serve responses without objections. Notably, while the Brown Declaration additionally avers in Paragraph 5 that a “courtesy copy” of these responses to the RFP were also emailed to defendant Hidalgo on 11/21/2025 (and may have even been received by defendant before the version of the responses which were mailed on 11/20/2025), such courtesy copy and related email date do not govern the timeliness of plaintiffs’ responses as the proof of service of the mail-served version demonstrates timely service on 11/20/2025.

In light of the foregoing, this Court finds that plaintiffs indeed served timely responses to the subject RFP from defendant on 11/20/2025 and therefore, defendant Hidalgo is not entitled to any order pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §2031.300 compelling plaintiffs to provide responses (with or without objections) to defendant's RFP.

Similarly, while defendant would not be entitled to any monetary sanction given that her motion will be denied, the Court notes that in any event defendant did not seek in connection with this motion a monetary sanction pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §2031.300(c) but instead, she expressly sought only “issue, evidence, or terminating sanctions.” (Not. of Mot., p.2:11-12; Decl., p.7:21-25.) Although there is no basis for sanctions, the Court notes that even if this motion had been granted, based on the plain language of §2031.300(c), no “issue, evidence, or terminating sanctions” would be available to defendant as she has not established that plaintiffs have failed to obey any order by this Court compelling them to provide responses to defendant’s RFP, which is a prerequisite to such non-monetary sanctions.

The Court adds that to the extent defendant Hidalgo may have believed plaintiffs’ 11/20/2025 responses to the RFP (consisting solely of objections) were in any way deficient or improper, defendant’s recourse (after completing the requisite meet-andconfer process) was to file and serve a motion pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §2031.310 to compel plaintiffs’ “further responses” to the subject RFP. However, she did not timely file such a motion.

Disposition

For the reasons explained above, defendant Hidalgo’s present motion to compel plaintiffs’ responses to the subject RFP is DENIED in its entirety.

The Court declines to impose any monetary sanctions against defendant Hidalgo under the circumstances here.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV025212: MILLER vs HIDALGO, et al. 04/28/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Production of Documents in Department 16D

Plaintiffs to provide notice of this ruling and file proof of service of same within five (5) court days.

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc. §1019.5; CRC Rule 3.1312.)