SHIVELY vs PROGRESSIVE INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL.

25CV025289: SHIVELY vs PROGRESSIVE INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL.,, et al. 06/11/2026 Hearing on Motion for Protective Order in Department 16C

Tentative Ruling

NOTICE:

Please take notice, Department 54 has moved to Department 16C at the Tani G. Cantil- Sakauye Courthouse. The new courthouse is located at 500 G Street, Sacramento, CA 95814.

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff in pro per Jasmine Shively’s (“Plaintiff”) “motion for protective order, for return and destruction of unredacted financial records, and for sanctions” is ruled upon as follows.

As to the defendant in pro per, Caleb Bomar (“Mr. Bomar”), the motion is DROPPED due to defective service. Plaintiff has failed to properly serve Mr. Bomar with the moving papers, and he has not filed an opposition. Self-represented parties like Mr. Bomar may not be served electronically without proof that they have consented to electronic service. Plaintiff provides a proof of service that shows service by email on Mr. Bomar, but no proof that he agreed to such manner of service. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1010.6(c); California Rules of Court, Rule 2.251(c)(3) [self represented persons “are to be served by nonelectronic methods unless they affirmatively consent to electronic service”].)

As to defendant United Financial Casualty Company (erroneously sued as “Progressive Insurance Company”) (“UFCC”), the Court rules as follows.

Plaintiff seeks a protective order that:

“1. All unredacted financial records of Plaintiff produced in this action shall be returned to Plaintiff or destroyed within 5 days of this Order.

2. Defendants and all parties are prohibited from using, referencing, or relying upon Plaintiff’s unredacted financial records for any purpose in this litigation.

3. Defendants and all parties are prohibited from further disclosing or disseminating Plaintiff’s unredacted financial records.

4. Any future production of Plaintiff’s financial records shall be limited to properly redacted versions or otherwise subject to appropriate protective measures.”

25CV025289: SHIVELY vs PROGRESSIVE INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL.,, et al. 06/11/2026 Hearing on Motion for Protective Order in Department 16C

(Notice of Motion at 1:23-2:6.)

Plaintiff contends that, in response to her request for production of her claim file, UFCC produced her financial records spanning approximately four years in unredacted form to her and Mr. Bomar. Plaintiff argues that the production contained her confidential financial information, that the production was not narrowly tailored, and that the production was not necessary because redacted versions of the same or similar records, previously filed by Plaintiff with the Court, were available and sufficient to convey any relevant information. Plaintiff insists a protective order is necessary to prohibit further use of the unredacted records, require their return or destruction, and ensure that Plaintiff’s confidential financial information is not used or disclosed beyond what is strictly necessary in this action.

Plaintiff moves pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 2025.420 and 2031.060.

Section 2025.420 is not applicable because it applies to depositions.

Section 2031.060 provides:

“(a) When an inspection, copying, testing, or sampling of documents, tangible things, places, or electronically stored information has been demanded, the party to whom the demand has been directed, and any other party or affected person, may promptly move for a protective order. This motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.

(b) The court, for good cause shown, may make any order that justice requires to protect any party or other person from unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression, or undue burden and expense. This protective order may include, but is not limited to, one or more of the following directions:

(1) That all or some of the items or categories of items in the demand need not be produced or made available at all.

(2) That the time specified in Section 2031.260 to respond to the set of demands, or to a particular item or category in the set, be extended.

(3) That the place of production be other than that specified in the demand.

(4) That the inspection, copying, testing, or sampling be made only on specified terms and conditions.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV025289: SHIVELY vs PROGRESSIVE INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL.,, et al. 06/11/2026 Hearing on Motion for Protective Order in Department 16C

(5) That a trade secret or other confidential research, development, or commercial information not be disclosed, or be disclosed only to specified persons or only in a specified way.

(6) That the items produced be sealed and thereafter opened only on order of the court.”

Here, Plaintiff, the party that propounded the discovery request, is seeking a protective order. However, the Court is not persuaded that Plaintiff has established that the requested protective order is necessary to protect her from “unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression, or undue burden or expense.” Plaintiff raises no wellreasoned legal argument explaining how UFCC’s response and production pursuant to her request satisfies the requirements to issue the protective order as requested.

UFCC has opposed and asserts there has been no discovery abuse because it fully complied with the Discovery Act and produced the records Plaintiff requested in request for production number one, which stated:

“Produce the complete claim file in Defendant’s possession, custody, or control relating to the October 4, 2025 collision involving the 2021 Ford F-350, including all claim notes, logs, diary entries, internal communications, reports, photographs, evaluations, and documents maintained in the ordinary course of claim handling.”

(Declaration of Patrick Howe, ¶ 4, Ex. 1.)

UFCC asserts it produced the complete claim file, which included the financial records, and if Plaintiff wanted fewer or redacted documents, she should have said so when drafting her discovery.

However, UFCC also states it “has no objection to the Court issuing some type of order limiting the use of the financial records to the litigation of this case[,]” but “plaintiff and Mr. Bomar will have to get together and come to some agreement on the terms of such an agreement.” (Opposition at 2:25-26, 3:23-25.)

The Court concludes Plaintiff has failed to satisfy her burden to demonstrate a protective order is warranted and, therefore, the motion for protective order is DENIED. However, the Court strongly encourages Plaintiff to meet and confer with Mr. Bomar and UFCC to discuss a mutually agreeable protective order, especially as UFCC has indicated it has no objection to the same.

The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to California Rules

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV025289: SHIVELY vs PROGRESSIVE INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL.,, et al. 06/11/2026 Hearing on Motion for Protective Order in Department 16C

of Court, Rule 3.1312, or further notice is required.

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 16C Zoom Link is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16030877014 To appear on Zoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID 16030877014. 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/courtreporters/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.