In Re: Guin Family Trust

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 24PR000359: IN RE: GUIN FAMILY TRUST 06/03/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other Motion to Quash in Department 126

Tentative Ruling TENTATIVE RULING PETITIONER JANE DEACON’S NOTICE AND NOTICE OF MOTION TO QUASH NOTICE OF DEPOSITION AND FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

MOTION FILED: 4/21/26

RE: In Re: Guin Family Trust

MOVING PARTY: Jane Deacon, Petitioner Attorney: Danielle Diebert, Buchalter. (916) 945-5171

RESPONDING PARTY: Joseph Marion, Respondent Self-Represented

NOTICE: Pursuant to Local Rule 1.06 (A), the court will make a tentative ruling on the merits of this matter by 2:00 p.m., the court day before the hearing. The complete text of the tentative ruling may be downloaded off the court’s website. If the party does not have online access, they may call the dedicated phone number for the Probate Department at (916) 875-2526 between the hours of 2:00 p.m. and 4:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing and receive the tentative ruling.

To request limited oral argument, on any matter on this calendar, you must call the If you do not call Probate Department at (916) 875-2526 and the opposing party by 4:00 p.m. the court day before the hearing. At the time of requesting oral argument, the requesting party shall leave a voicemail message: a) identifying themselves as the party requesting oral argument; b) indicating the specific matter/motion for which they are requesting oral argument; and c0 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, no hearing will be held and the tentative ruling shall become 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 126 Zoom Link is https://saccourt-cagov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept126 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 160 5926 9604. To appear on Zoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID referenced above. NO COURTCALL APPEARANCES WILL BE ACCEPTED.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 24PR000359: IN RE: GUIN FAMILY TRUST 06/03/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other Motion to Quash in Department 126

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 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 Petitioner Jane Deacon (“Petitioner”) filed a motion to quash a deposition notice served by Respondent Joseph Perez (“Respondent”) and for protective order. The motion is GRANTED as follows.

Petitioner indicates trial was originally set for March 2, 2026. (Memorandum of Points and Authorities [“MPA”], 2:11-12.) Petitioner states Respondent served a notice of deposition on Petitioner after discovery had closed. Petitioner argues the discovery cutoff was February 2, 2026, 30 days prior to the date initially set for trial, March 2, 2026. Petitioner thus maintains she was not obligated to participate in the deposition set April 27, 2026. Petitioner, through counsel, sought to meet and confer about the alleged untimeliness of the notice of deposition and deposition. (Declaration of Danielle Diebert, ¶ 11, Exhibit 2.)

Respondent disputed the timeliness of his notice of deposition and deposition. Notably, in his response to Petitioner’s meet and confer efforts, Respondent indicates he “will move the Court to reopen discovery under [Code of Civil Procedure] § 2024.050 in the interest of justice.” (Diebert Decl., ¶ 12, Exhibit 3.)

A party may move for a protective order before deposition, and a court, for good cause shown, may make any order that justice requires to protect any party from unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression, or undue burden and expense, including that the deposition not be taken at all. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.420(a)-(b).) Here, Petitioner moves for protective order on the grounds that the deposition is “harassing, oppressive, and disproportionate to the needs of the

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 24PR000359: IN RE: GUIN FAMILY TRUST 06/03/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other Motion to Quash in Department 126

case,” given the alleged untimeliness of the deposition notice and deposition. (MPA, 4:12.)

“Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, any party shall be entitled as a matter of right to complete discovery proceedings on or before the 30th day, and to have motions concerning discovery heard on or before the 15th day, before the date initially set for the trial of the action.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.020(a) [emphasis added].) A court may grant leave to reopen discovery on motion of any party. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.050(a).)

This matter was initially set for trial on March 2, 2026. (Declaration of Danielle Diebert [“Diebert Decl.”], ¶ 3.) On November 19, 2025, the trial date was continued to June 1, 2026. (Id., ¶ 7.) The trial date has since been continued to August 3, 2026. (Order Determining Disposition of Ex Parte Application, 4/29/2026.) Thus, based on the initial trial date of March 2, 2026, the deposition notice and deposition are untimely.

“Except as provided in Section 2024.050, a continuance or postponement of the trial date does not operate to reopen discovery proceedings.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.020(b) [emphasis added].) Despite Respondent’s representation that he would move to reopen discovery, Respondent has not sought a court order to reopen discovery, nor has Respondent demonstrated that any exception applies.

The motion to quash the deposition notice and for protective order that the deposition not be taken at all is GRANTED.

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