Gary Sornborger vs. Jenette Kempkes

202200570578CUOR: Gary Sornborger vs. Jenette Kempkes 06/03/2026 in Department 41 Motion to Contest Claim of Privilege

Below is the Court’s tentative decision with respect to the matter on calendar. The Court may adopt, modify, or change the tentative ruling after hearing. The tentative ruling has no legal effect unless and until adopted by the Court.

If you wish to submit on the Court’s tentative decision without appearing, please send an email to the following address by 8:00 a.m. on the date of the hearing with counsel for all parties’ copied on your email: courtroom41@ventura.courts.ca.gov Please state on the subject line of your email: “SUBMISSION ON TENTATIVE”, Case Number, Title and Party. If fewer than all parties submit on the tentative, the hearing will proceed, and the tentative decision is subject to change.

Unless stated otherwise at the hearing, if a formal order is required but not signed at the hearing, the prevailing party shall prepare a proposed order and comply with CRC 3.1312 subdivisions (a), (b), (d) and (e). The signed order shall be served on all parties and a proof of service filed with the court. A "notice of ruling" in lieu of this procedure is not authorized.

If you are an attorney or Pro Per and your case is on calendar, you can appear remotely by Zoom for Case Management Conferences and Law & Motion matters. You cannot appear remotely for trials or any matter where testimony or evidence is going to be admitted. This court no longer allows remote appearances by CourtCall. Zoom is the exclusive means by which counsel can appear remotely. Represented parties, interested persons, witnesses, and the public at large, cannot attend remotely. You cannot forward the Court's Zoom link to others so that they can attend remotely. Courtroom 41 is open to the public and such individuals can attend by physically appearing in the courtroom. While appearing remotely by Zoom, it is unlawful

202200570578CUOR: Gary Sornborger vs. Jenette Kempkes

to video or audio record the proceedings or take screen shots/still photos of the proceedings.

To appear remotely by Zoom, you must submit an email request to the Court by 4 p.m. the court day before your hearing to: courtroom41@ventura.courts.ca.gov, with a subject line that includes “NOTICE TO APPEAR VIA ZOOM.” Your email request must identify the name of the attorney/party who will appear by Zoom and all counsel/parties must be copied on your email request. When appearing by Zoom, you will need to mute yourself until your case is called at which point you will also have to turn on your camera. The court calendar begins at 9 a.m. Assuming you have given advance email notice the court day before your hearing of your intent to appear by Zoom, you may enter the Courtroom 41 Zoom waiting room at 8:15 a.m. on the day of your hearing through this link: https://ventura-courts-ca.zoom.us/j/81985625079?pwd=cHV2MENmWGNLSnJCMlM5Sk1xRk 0vdz09

For information about Judge DeNoce including his case management and trial rules, please visit: www.DeNoce.com

______________________________________________________________

Tentative Decision:

Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Gary Sornborger and Cross-Defendant Debbie Sornborger’s Motion Contesting Claim of Privilege.

Initially, the Court declines to rule on Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Gary Sornborger and Cross-Defendant Debbie Sornborger’s evidentiary objections. No proposed order has been submitted in violation of California Rules of Court rule 3.1345(c).

Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Gary Sornborger and Cross-Defendant Debbie Sornborger’s Motion Contesting Claim of Privilege is GRANTED. Defendants/Cross-Complainants Jeannette Kempkes and Michael Kempkes have not sustained their burden of proof regarding that the materials at issue are privileged. Thus, on this ground alone the motion can be granted.

202200570578CUOR: Gary Sornborger vs. Jenette Kempkes

Regardless, even had the burden of proof shifted, the moving party has made a very persuasive argument that any privilege has been waived.

“[A] report or other communication made by an insured to his liability insurance Company, concerning an event which may be made the basis of a claim against him covered by the policy, is a privileged communication, as being between attorney and client, if the policy requires the company to defend him through its attorneys, and the communication is intended for the information or assistance of the attorney and so defending him.” (Soltani-Rastegar v. Superior Court (1989) 208 Cal.App.3d 424, 427)

Here, Plaintiff has not established that the email at issue falls within the attorney client privilege. As noted in the moving papers, “In her deposition, Ms. Kempkes described Anil as “my insurance agent,” not a claim representative. Insurance Code §§ 31 and 1621 both define an “insurance agent” as “a person authorized, by and on behalf of an insurer, to transact all classes of insurance other than life, disability, or health insurance, on behalf of an admitted insurance company.” Case law strictly limits an insurance agent’s scope of authority and liability to the use of reasonable care, diligence, and judgment in procuring the insurance requested by a client.

Hartford Casualty Ins. Co. v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co. (N.D. Cal. 2016) 220 F.Supp.3d 1008, 1017. Anil was a salesman of Farmers insurance products, not an adjustor, investigator, or claims representative. Ms. Kempkes’ communications with him were not privileged.”

Defendants have produced no evidence that show that the Feb 3 email and/or the subsequent phone conversation, was intended to be sent to an insurance claim representative for the purpose of defending Defendant against a claim. As correctly noted in the reply, “Defendants offer virtually no evidence to support their privilege claim, Ms. Kempkes and her counsel both offer testimony about Anil’s job without personal knowledge, but there is no declaration from Anil. Nor is there any declaration from Mr. Koletsky explaining why he allowed his client to testify and produce purportedly privileged documents, which Defendants now assert was obviously privileged.” Thus, the burden has not shifted to Plaintiff and the motion can be denied. Even had the burden shifted, the motion would still be properly denied as Plaintiff has made a very compelling argument regarding waiver.

3