PADILLA vs SHERRILL, et al.

23CV003404: PADILLA vs SHERRILL, et al. 04/06/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses to Production of Documents, Set Six in Department 25

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 25 Zoom Link is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept25 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 1342 1868. 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

23CV003404: PADILLA vs SHERRILL, et al. 04/06/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses to Production of Documents, Set Six in Department 25

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.

****NOTICE: EFFECTIVE APRIL 13, 2026, THIS DEPARTMENT WILL MOVE TO THE TANI G. CANTIL-SAKAUYE COURTHOUSE LOCATED AT 500 G. ST. SACRAMENTO, CA. MOTIONS NOTICED FOR DEPARTMENT 25 WILL BE HEARD IN DEPARTMENT 8D OF THE NEW COURTHOUSE. ALL HEARINGS WILL TAKE PLACE AT THIS NEW LOCATION****

TENTATIVE RULING:

The motion of Defendant/Cross-Complainant in pro per Joseph Sherrill (“Sherrill” or “Defendant”) to compel Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Joseph Padilla’s (“Padilla” or “Plaintiff”) further responses to Defendant’s propounded “Requests for Production of Documents and Things, Set Six (Nos. 78-86), without objections,” and request for sanctions, is ruled upon as follows.

Background

On June 20, 2023, Plaintiff filed his complaint against Defendant alleging breach of lease, negligence, intentional interference with contractual relations, harassment, and defamation. On December 17, 2025, Plaintiff filed the operative First Amended Complaint. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant is the owner of the tenant space located at 3100 Elkhorn Boulevard, North Highlands (the “Premises”). Plaintiff alleges that in or about September 2019, he entered into a commercial lease with purchase agreement (“Agreement”) with Defendant for the Premises which included space within a shop building and several other areas on the Premises, including access to Elkhorn Boulevard and area for parking motor vehicles. The Agreement also included the purchase by Plaintiff from Defendant of certain mechanical and fabrication equipment situated within the Premises.

On September 25, 2023, Defendant filed his cross-complaint (“XC”) against Plaintiff for breach of contract, specific performance, injunction and declaratory relief.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV003404: PADILLA vs SHERRILL, et al. 04/06/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses to Production of Documents, Set Six in Department 25

In his XC, Defendant alleges, inter alia, that on July 14, 2019, in a written lease/contract of purchase, Plaintiff agreed that he would pay Defendant $5,000 down payment balance; Defendant would waive the $4,000 security deposit in exchange for Plaintiff being liable for labor and materials for the repairs and maintenance of his leased building and premises; Plaintiff could start moving in on August 1, 2019, so as to renovate and updated the inside and outsides of the premises; and Plaintiff would clean, maintain, and repair any equipment in advance of his opening date of September 1, 2019. (XC, ¶ 5.)

Defendant also alleges that “PADILLA is removing and possibly selling off un-paid for machine shop assets.” (XC, ¶ 28.) Specifically, Defendant alleges that if “PADILLA disconnects and/or removes any single item or all of the machinery, fixture or asset he would be in direct violation the terms of the Commercial CONTRACT.” (XC, ¶ 26.) With this, it is alleged that on “September 8, 2023, it was discovered (via surveillance cameras) that, while landlord was out of town between September 1st-5th 2023, PADILLA had secretly removed assets from the machine shop and other items from the rear premise areas to an unknown offsite location.” (XC, ¶ 27.)

A trial date is presently set in this matter for June 16, 2026.

On December 4, 2025, Defendant filed the instant motion to compel.

Legal Standard

Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.210, requires a party’s response to requests for production of documents be one the following:

(1) A statement that the party will comply with the particular demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling by the date set for the inspection, copying, testing, or sampling pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (c) of Section 2031.030 and any related activities.

(2) A representation that the party lacks the ability to comply with the demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling of a particular item or category of item.

(3) An objection to the particular demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling.

An agreement to comply must be rather specific as to what is agreed to: “A statement that the party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling has been directed will comply with the particular demand shall state that the production,

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV003404: PADILLA vs SHERRILL, et al. 04/06/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses to Production of Documents, Set Six in Department 25

inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, and related activity demanded, 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.)

Similarly, “[a] representation of inability to comply with the particular demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling shall affirm that a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry has been made in an effort to comply with that demand. This statement shall also specify whether the inability to comply is because the particular item or category has never existed, has been destroyed, has been lost, misplaced, or stolen, or has never been, or is no longer, in the possession, custody, or control of the responding party. The statement shall set forth the name and address of any natural person or organization known or believed by that party to have possession, custody, or control of that item or category of item.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.230.)

Upon receipt of a response, the demanding party may move for an order compelling further response to the demand if the demanding party deems any of the following apply:

(1) A statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete;

(2) A representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive; or

(3) An objection in the response is without merit or too general.

(Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310(a).)

Such a motion must set forth “specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310(b)(1).) The burden of showing good cause “is met simply by a fact-specific showing of relevance.” (Glenfed Dev. Corp. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1117.) If “good cause” is shown by the moving party, the burden is on the responding party to justify any objections made to the demands. (Kirkland v. Superior Court (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 92, 98, citing Coy v. Superior Court (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220-221.)

Discussion

Through this motion, Defendant seeks the following:

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV003404: PADILLA vs SHERRILL, et al. 04/06/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses to Production of Documents, Set Six in Department 25

1. Compelling Plaintiff Joseph Padilla (“PLAINTIFF”) to serve further responses to DEFENDANT's Requests for Production of Documents and Things, Set Six (No. 78-86), without objections;

2. Compelling PLAINTIFF to produce all responsive documents and things for inspection and copying, organized and identified by each specific request number per CCP § 2031.280(a).

3. Impose monetary sanctions against PLAINTIFF's counsel Stephen S. Brand (“‘BRAND”) pursuant to CCP §§ 2031.310 and 2023.030(a), for discovery misuse and unsuccessful opposition as a result of his bad-faith actions solely intended to cause unnecessary delay

4. Reserving the right to seek further sanctions, including issue, evidence, or terminating sanctions under CCP § 2023.030, if ordered responses are in noncompliance.

(Ntc. Mot.)

Defendant states that on September 15, 2025, he propounded and served his “Request for Production of Documents, Set Six, on PLAINTIFF.” (Sherrill Decl., ¶ 4, Exh. C.) On October 21, 2025, Defendant received Plaintiff’s responses to the subject discovery. (Sherrill Decl., ¶5, Exh. D.) On October 30, 2025, Defendant sent Plaintiff a meet and confer letter identifying perceived deficiencies with Plaintiff’s responses to the subject discovery. (Sherrill Decl., ¶ 6, Exh. E.) Defendant attests that he did not receive any supplemental or further responses at the time of filing this motion. (See Sherrill Decl., ¶ 7.)

Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s responses to the subject discovery contained unsubstantiated objections; the responses were deficient, evasive, and incomplete; and the responses “fail” as no production was provided whatsoever. Defendant also requests sanctions “against PLAINTIFF's counsel Stephen S. Brand (‘BRAND’) pursuant to CCP §§ 2031.310 and 2023.030(a), for discovery misuse and unsuccessful opposition.” (Ntc. Mot.; see also Mov. MPA, p. 7:11-23.)

Plaintiff opposes the motion. The Court will address each of the requests at issue, in turn, below.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV003404: PADILLA vs SHERRILL, et al. 04/06/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses to Production of Documents, Set Six in Department 25

A. Request For Production No. 78:

“Provide all writings relating between you and Gerald Apodaca Jr. between the period of September 2022 to date.”

Plaintiff has provided the following response:

Objection. Vague, overbroad, and seeks information unrelated to the subject property or claims in this action. It targets post-tenancy communications regarding an unrelated business venture. Without waiving objections, Responding Party states that no responsive documents relevant to this action exist.

(See Sept. Stmt., emphasis omitted; Sherrill Decl., Exh. D.)

Here, Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s objection is boilerplate and lacks specific grounds, and further, that the response is evasive. Further, Defendant contends that the request is relevant to Defendant’s cross-claims, as communications with Apodaca Jr. may reveal “secured equipment’s disposition and business dealings tied to the lease dispute.” In this regard, Defendant states that “[o]n or about September 8, 2025 [he] was advised that Plaintiff had sold/transferred the assets of ‘Precision Machine Engine’ to ‘Unleashed Power’ dba for ‘Unleashed Power Racing Engines LLC’ with Gerald Apodaca as its agent.” (Sherrill Decl., ¶ 2., emphasis omitted.) Lastly, Plaintiff contends that the provided response of “no responsive documents” is not Code complaint.

In opposition, Plaintiff raises general arguments which amount to the following: (1) the requests seek irrelevant information; (2) Plaintiff properly objected to the inspection of privately owned equipment; (3) the Plaintiff’s provided responses of “no responsive documents” is Code compliant; (4) Defendant has not shown prejudice; (5) sanctions are not appropriate; and (5) Defendant has not demonstrated good cause. (Opp’n, pp. 3:15-4:28.)

First, as to relevance, Plaintiff argues that the requests seek irrelevant “post-tenancy business information.” In this regard, Plaintiff contends that “seeking Plaintiff’s subsequent business records, LLC operations, or communications with unrelated third parties are not elements of any pleaded claim and are not reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence.” (Opp’n, p. 3:16-19.) In general, the discovery procedures are liberally applied and “doubts as to relevance should generally be resolved in favor of permitting discovery.” (Hecht, Solberg, Robinson, Goldberg & Bagley LLP v. Superior

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV003404: PADILLA vs SHERRILL, et al. 04/06/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses to Production of Documents, Set Six in Department 25

Court (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 579, 595.) The range of permissible inquiry is broad. For discovery purposes, information is relevant if it might reasonably assist a party in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement. Admissibility is not the test and information unless privileged, is discoverable if it might reasonably lead to admissible evidence. These rules are applied liberally in favor of discovery, and (contrary to popular belief) fishing expeditions are permissible in some cases. (Gonzales v.

Superior Court (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1539, 1546.) Defendant has demonstrated that the subject discovery meets this liberal standard, especially considering the allegations in the XC, that among other things, Plaintiff has removed assets, such as equipment and other items, from the Premises. (XC, ¶¶ 26-28.) The Court finds that Defendant has demonstrated good cause for this discovery. Plaintiff’s objection as to relevance is OVERRULED.

Regarding Plaintiff’s remaining objections, these objections are OVERRULED as they were not addressed in opposing the motion. In opposing a motion to compel further responses, the burden is on the opposing party to justify any objection or failure to provide complete responses. (See Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255, citing Coy, supra, 58 Cal.2d at p. 221.)

Additionally, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to provide a Code compliant response. Plaintiff simply states that, “no responsive documents relevant to this action exist.” To the extent that it would appear Plaintiff withholds information on the basis of relevance, the Court has overruled this objection (and the other raised objections). Further, “[a] representation of inability to comply with the particular demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling shall affirm that a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry has been made in an effort to comply with that demand.

This statement shall also specify whether the inability to comply is because the particular item or category has never existed, has been destroyed, has been lost, misplaced, or stolen, or has never been, or is no longer, in the possession, custody, or control of the responding party.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.230, emphasis added.) Plaintiff fails to include the requisite language.

Defendant’s motion to compel is GRANTED as to this request. Plaintiff shall provide a further response to Request No.

78.

B. Request For Production No. 79:

“Provide all written agreements and contracts between you and Gerald Apodaca Jr., including business-related [sic].”

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV003404: PADILLA vs SHERRILL, et al. 04/06/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses to Production of Documents, Set Six in Department 25

Plaintiff has provided the following response:

Objection. Overbroad, irrelevant, and invades privacy/association rights; seeks contracts concerning post-tenancy business activities unrelated to any claim or defense here. Without waiving objections, after a diligent search and reasonable inquiry, Responding Party states that no agreements or contracts relevant to this action exist.

(See Sept. Stmt., emphasis omitted; Sherrill Decl., Exh. D.)

For similar reasons as explained above, Plaintiff’s objection on the basis of relevance is OVERRULED.

Next, to the extent that Plaintiff raises an objection based on privacy, the California Supreme Court has established a framework for evaluating potential invasions of privacy in the context of discovery:

The party asserting a privacy right must establish a legally protected privacy interest, an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in the given circumstances, and a threatened intrusion that is serious. The party seeking information may raise in response whatever legitimate and important countervailing interests disclosure serves, while the party seeking protection may identify feasible alternatives that serve the same interests or protective measures that would diminish the loss of privacy. A court must then balance these competing considerations.

(Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 552, internal citations omitted.)

In balancing of the requested discovery and its relevance to the subject matter involved in the pending action, the Court must consider whether it “appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence,” as opposed to any countervailing considerations, such as privacy and privilege. In general, the discovery procedures are liberally applied and “doubts as to relevance should generally be resolved in favor of permitting discovery.” (Hecht, Solberg, Robinson, Goldberg & Bagley LLP v. Superior Court (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 579, 595.)

Despite raising this general objection, notably, Plaintiff fails to make any argument in opposition that the disclosure of information responsive to this request would implicate

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV003404: PADILLA vs SHERRILL, et al. 04/06/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses to Production of Documents, Set Six in Department 25

any legally protected privacy interest. Based on the evidence before the Court, the Court determines that Plaintiff has not made a preliminary or foundational showing that information sought by the request would, in fact, reveal any information protected under any privacy interests. Thus, the Court concludes this objection is unsubstantiated and is therefore OVERRULED.

Regarding Plaintiff’s remaining objections to this request, these objections are OVERRULED as they were not addressed in opposing the motion.

Additionally, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to provide a Code compliant response. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.230.)

Defendant’s motion to compel is GRANTED as to this request. Plaintiff shall provide a further response to Request No.

79.

C. Request For Production No. 80:

“Provide all written communications between you and the landlord at 4500 Dry Creek Rd #4, Sacramento, CA 95835, regarding the renewal or non-renewal of your 2026 lease contract(s).”

Plaintiff has provided the following response:

Objection. Irrelevant and overbroad. This concerns a different location and lease entered into after the events alleged here and has no connection to Defendant Sherrill or the subject property. Without waiving objections, no responsive documents relevant to this action exist.

(See Sept. Stmt., emphasis omitted; Sherrill Decl., Exh. D.)

For similar reasons explained above, Plaintiff’s objection on the basis of relevance is OVERRULED.

Regarding Plaintiff’s remaining objections to this request, these objections are OVERRULED as they were not addressed in opposing the motion.

Additionally, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to provide a Code compliant response. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.230.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV003404: PADILLA vs SHERRILL, et al. 04/06/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses to Production of Documents, Set Six in Department 25

Defendant’s motion to compel is GRANTED as to this request. Plaintiff shall provide a further response to Request No.

80.

D. Request for Production No. 81:

“Provide all written communications between you or all persons involved in your relationship to Unleashed Precision Engines, LLC, located at 4500 Dry Creek Rd #4, Sacramento, CA 95835.”

Plaintiff has provided the following response:

Objection. Overbroad, irrelevant, unduly burdensome, and seeks private/proprietary information about a post-tenancy business unrelated to the claims/defenses here. Without waiving objections, no documents relevant to this action exist.

(See Sept. Stmt., emphasis omitted; Sherrill Decl., Exh. D.)

For similar reasons explained above, Plaintiff’s objection on the basis of relevance is OVERRULED.

For similar reasons explained above, Plaintiff’s objection on the basis of privacy is OVERRULED.

As to Plaintiff’s objection based on “proprietary information,” it is unclear to what extent, if any, Plaintiff has withheld any information on the basis that it is protected from disclosure based on being privileged, i.e., that it regards confidential, proprietary, and/or trade secret information. Indeed, Plaintiff fails to make any argument in opposition directly addressing this issue. Nonetheless, to the extent that Plaintiff has withheld responsive information and/or documents on the basis that Plaintiff contends they are protected from disclosure (based on confidential, proprietary, and/or trade secret information), Plaintiff shall provide a privilege log, which is “sufficiently specific to allow a determination of whether each withheld document is or is not [in] fact privileged.” (Wellpoint Health Networks v.

Superior Court (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 110, 130; see also Catalina Island Yacht Club v. Superior Court (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 1116, 1130.)[1]

Regarding Plaintiff’s remaining objections to this request, these objections are OVERRULED as they were not addressed in opposing the motion.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV003404: PADILLA vs SHERRILL, et al. 04/06/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses to Production of Documents, Set Six in Department 25

Additionally, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to provide a Code compliant response. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.230.)

Defendant’s motion to compel is GRANTED as to this request. Plaintiff shall provide a further response to Request No.

81.

E. Request for Production No. 82:

“Provide all writings related to your lease/rental regarding 4500 Dry Creek Rd #4, Sacramento, CA 95835, between you and the landlord.”

Plaintiff has provided the following response:

Objection. Irrelevant and overbroad. This request concerns a different lease entered into after the events at issue and is unrelated to Defendant Sherrill or the subject property. Without waiving objections, no responsive documents relevant to this litigation exist.

(See Sept. Stmt., emphasis omitted; Sherrill Decl., Exh. D.)

For similar reasons explained above, Plaintiff’s objection on the basis of relevance is OVERRULED.

Regarding Plaintiff’s remaining objections to this request, these objections are OVERRULED as they were not addressed in opposing the motion.

Additionally, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to provide a Code compliant response. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.230.)

Defendant’s motion to compel is GRANTED as to this request. Plaintiff shall provide a further response to Request No.

82.

F. Request for Production No. 83:

“Provide all written communications and agreements between you (dba Precision Machine Engine) and Gerald Apodaca Jr. (dba Unleashed Power), including any relating to Unleashed Precision Engines, LLC.”

Plaintiff has provided the following response:

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV003404: PADILLA vs SHERRILL, et al. 04/06/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses to Production of Documents, Set Six in Department 25

Objection. Overbroad, vague, irrelevant, and invasive of privacy/association rights. The request seeks post-tenancy materials unrelated to the subject property or Defendant Sherrill. Without waiving objections, no documents relevant to this action exist.

(See Sept. Stmt., emphasis omitted; Sherrill Decl., Exh. D.)

For similar reasons explained above, Plaintiff’s objection on the basis of relevance is OVERRULED.

For similar reasons explained above, Plaintiff’s objection on the basis of privacy is OVERRULED.

Regarding Plaintiff’s remaining objections to this request, these objections are OVERRULED as they were not addressed in opposing the motion.

Additionally, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to provide a Code compliant response. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.230.)

Defendant’s motion to compel is GRANTED as to this request. Plaintiff shall provide a further response to Request No.

83.

G. Request for Production No. 84:

“Provide all writings identifying each piece of machine shop equipment and the person’s contact information who has current possession of each piece you moved from 3100 Elkhorn Blvd, North Highlands, CA 95660 prior to November 1, 2023.”

Plaintiff has provided the following response:

Objection. Overbroad, unduly burdensome, and irrelevant; seeks a proprietary equipment inventory and third-party contact information unrelated to the claims/defenses here. It is not limited to items claimed by Defendant and invades privacy. Without waiving objections, Responding Party states that any equipment moved from 3100 Elkhorn Blvd. was owned by Responding Party, not Defendant; none of Defendant’s property was retained. Responding Party does not maintain an itemized listing correlating each piece to a current custodian, and after diligent search and reasonable inquiry, no responsive writings exist in his possession,

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV003404: PADILLA vs SHERRILL, et al. 04/06/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses to Production of Documents, Set Six in Department 25

custody, or control. To the extent Defendant identifies specific items he claims ownership of, Responding Party is willing to conduct a targeted supplemental search limited to those items.

(See Sept. Stmt., emphasis omitted; Sherrill Decl., Exh. D.)

For similar reasons explained above, Plaintiff’s objection on the basis of relevance is OVERRULED.

For similar reasons explained above, Plaintiff’s objection on the basis of privacy is OVERRULED.

As to Plaintiff’s objection based on “proprietary information,” to the extent that Plaintiff has withheld responsive information and/or documents on the basis that they are protected from disclosure based on confidential, proprietary, and/or trade secret information, Plaintiff shall provide a privilege log.

Regarding Plaintiff’s remaining objections to this request, these objections are OVERRULED as they were not addressed in opposing the motion.

Defendant’s motion to compel is GRANTED as to this request. Plaintiff shall provide a further response to Request No.

84.

H. Request for Production No. 85:

“Provide all invoices, receipts between you (dba Precision Machine Engine) and Gerald Apodaca Jr. (dba Unleashed Power) between the period of September 2022 to date.”

Plaintiff has provided the following response:

Objection. Overbroad, irrelevant, and seeks post-tenancy financial records unrelated to any claim or defense; invades privacy and proprietary information. Without waiving objections, after diligent search and reasonable inquiry, no invoices or receipts relevant to this action exist.

(See Sept. Stmt., emphasis omitted; Sherrill Decl., Exh. D.)

For similar reasons explained above, Plaintiff’s objection on the basis of relevance is OVERRULED.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV003404: PADILLA vs SHERRILL, et al. 04/06/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses to Production of Documents, Set Six in Department 25

For similar reasons explained above, Plaintiff’s objection on the basis of privacy is OVERRULED.

As to Plaintiff’s objection based on “proprietary information,” to the extent that Plaintiff has withheld responsive information and/or documents on the basis that they are protected from disclosure based on confidential, proprietary, and/or trade secret information, Plaintiff shall provide a privilege log.

Regarding Plaintiff’s remaining objections to this request, these objections are OVERRULED as they were not addressed in opposing the motion.

Additionally, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to provide a Code compliant response. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.230.)

Defendant’s motion to compel is GRANTED as to this request. Plaintiff shall provide a further response to Request No.

85.

I. Request for Production No. 86:

“Provide all writings and tangible items, including photos, videos, screenshots, etc., of each online presence for Unleashed Precision Engines, LL.C, identifying your investment in the business.”

Plaintiff has provided the following response:

Objection. Irrelevant, overbroad, and unduly burdensome; seeks private/proprietary post-tenancy information about a separate business and attempts to probe Responding Party’s personal finances/association. Without waiving objections, Responding Party has conducted a diligent search and reasonable inquiry and has not located any writings or tangible items that identify Responding Party’s “investment” in a manner relevant to this action. To the extent public online content exists concerning Unleashed Precision Engines, it has no connection to Defendant Sherrill or the subject property and is therefore not responsive.

(See Sept. Stmt., emphasis omitted; Sherrill Decl., Exh. D.)

For similar reasons explained above, Plaintiff’s objection on the basis of relevance is

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV003404: PADILLA vs SHERRILL, et al. 04/06/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses to Production of Documents, Set Six in Department 25

OVERRULED.

For similar reasons explained above, Plaintiff’s objection on the basis of privacy is OVERRULED.

As to Plaintiff’s objection based on “proprietary information,” to the extent that Plaintiff has withheld responsive information and/or documents on the basis that they are protected from disclosure based on confidential, proprietary, and/or trade secret information, Plaintiff shall provide a privilege log.

Regarding Plaintiff’s remaining objections to this request, these objections are OVERRULED as they were not addressed in opposing the motion.

Additionally, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to provide a Code compliant response. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.230.)

Defendant’s motion to compel is GRANTED as to this request. Plaintiff shall provide a further response to Request No.

86.

J. Production of Documents (Requests Nos. 78-86)

Finally, to the extent Defendant seeks to compel production of documents, this request is premature. A motion to compel production is only proper where a party has agreed to produce documents but has failed to do so in compliance with its statement. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.320(a).) As seen from Plaintiff’s responses, no such indication has been made. Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to compel the production of documents is DENIED, without prejudice, as premature.

Disposition

Defendant’s motion to compel Plaintiff’s further responses to its propounded requests for production of documents, set six, Requests Nos. 78-86, is GRANTED as set forth herein.

Defendant’s motion to compel the production of documents is DENIED without prejudice.

Consistent with the above, Plaintiff shall serve verified further responses, no later than April 30, 2026, unless the parties otherwise agree to a later date, confirmed in writing.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV003404: PADILLA vs SHERRILL, et al. 04/06/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses to Production of Documents, Set Six in Department 25

By the same date, if and where applicable, Plaintiff shall provide a privilege log. (Catalina Island Yacht Club, supra, 242 Cal.App.4th at p. 1130.)

Defendant’s request for sanctions is DENIED as the Court finds the imposition of sanctions to be unjust. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2023.050, 2031.300(c).)

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1019.5; Cal. Rules Court, rule 3.1312.)

[1] “The precise information required for an adequate privilege log will vary from case to

case based on the privileges asserted and the underlying circumstances. In general, however, a privilege log typically should provide the identity and capacity of all individuals who authored, sent, or received each allegedly privileged document, the document's date, a brief description of the document and its contents or subject matter sufficient to determine whether the privilege applies, and the precise privilege or protection asserted.” (Catalina Island Yacht Club, supra, 242 Cal.App.4th at p. 1130.)