ROBERTS vs ALBERTSONS SAFEWAY, LLC, A DELAWARE COMPANY, et al.

Here, Defendants intentionally risked further action of this Court due to failure to obey a court order because they unilaterally decided that it was unnecessary to have their PMK appear at volume two of the deposition because they admitted liability.

“A willful failure does not necessarily include a wrongful intention to disobey discovery rules. A conscious or intentional failure to act, as distinguished from accidental or involuntary noncompliance, is sufficient to invoke a penalty.” (Alliance Bank v. Murray (1984) 161 Cal.App.3d 1, 11 [internal citation omitted].)

A party must comply with a court-issued discovery order and must seek relief through proper judicial channels rather than engaging in self-help noncompliance. Defendants’ unilateral disobedience constitutes a misuse of the discovery process which allows the Court to grant sanctions including issue, evidentiary, and terminating sanctions.

“The discovery statutes evince an incremental approach to discovery sanctions, starting with monetary sanctions and ending with the ultimate sanction of termination. Discovery sanctions ‘should beappropriate tothedereliction, andshould not exceed that which isrequiredto protect the interests of the party entitled to but denied discovery. If a lesser sanctionfails tocurb misuse, a greater sanction iswarranted: continuing misuses of the discovery processwarrantincrementally harsher sanctions until the sanction is reached that will curb the abuse.

A decision to orderterminating sanctions should not be made lightly. But where a violation is willful, preceded by a history of abuse, and the evidence shows that less severe sanctions would not produce compliance with the discovery rules, the trial court is justified in imposing the ultimate sanction.” (Doppesv. Bentley Motors, Inc.(2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 967, 992. [internal quotation marks and citations omitted].)

Defendants claim that they did not produce the PMQ as they feel admitting liability as to the breach, but not causation or damages, means that there is no legitimate reason to have the PMK deposition continue. (Opp., p. 3.) Defendants did not produce based on that reasoning but nonetheless apologize and ask the Court for forgiveness. (Id.)

The Court disagrees with the way that Defendants handled their belief that the deposition was no longer needed due to the admission of liability. To move incrementally and with an intention to hear the case on the merits, the Court will give Defendants one last opportunity to produce the PMK for deposition volume two. If this deposition fails to occur, the Court intends to grant issue and/or evidentiary sanctions.

The Court finds this motion was wholly caused by Defendants’ misuse of the discovery process and therefore monetary sanctions are warranted.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

24CV083946: ROBERTS vs ALBERTSONS SAFEWAY, LLC, A DELAWARE COMPANY, et al. 06/16/2026 Hearing on Motion for Sanctions filed by Naomi Roberts (Plaintiff) CRS# 250911339719 in Department 518 Order

For the foregoing reasons, Defendants are required to produce the PMK, Rachel McCrorey, for volume two of the deposition on or before June 26, 2026, since trial is quickly approaching in July.

The requested monetary sanctions are reasonable and supported by counsel’s declaration. (Bremont Declaration ¶¶ 15 – 18.) Thus, Defendants are further required to pay the Plaintiff’s counsel monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,483.05 on or before June 26, 2026.

--

PLEASE NOTE: Pursuant to California Rule of Court 3.1308, subdivision (a)(1), this tentative ruling will become the order of the Court unless it is contested before 4:00 PM on the court day preceding the noticed hearing.

To contest a tentative ruling, a party should do the following:

First, the party must notify Department 518, by email at Dept518@alameda.courts.ca.gov and copy all counsel of record and self-represented parties. The contesting party must state in the subject line of the email the case name, case number and motion.

Second, the party shall log into the eCourt Public Portal, search for this case (e.g., by case number), select the case name, select the "Tentative Rulings" tab, click the "Click to Contest this Ruling" button, enter the party's name and a brief statement of the party's reason for contesting the tentative, and click "Proceed."

Please note the Court does not permit remote appearances for motions for summary judgment that are contested. If you contest a Motion for Summary Judgment, you must appear in person.

For all other motions (unless otherwise noted in the tentative ruling), Parties may appear via videoconference, using the Zoom.com website or application. TO CONNECT TO ZOOM: Department 518 is inviting you to a scheduled ZoomGov meeting.

Topic: Department 518's Personal Meeting Room

Join ZoomGov Meeting https://alameda-courts-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16054307984

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

24CV083946: ROBERTS vs ALBERTSONS SAFEWAY, LLC, A DELAWARE COMPANY, et al. 06/16/2026 Hearing on Motion for Sanctions filed by Naomi Roberts (Plaintiff) CRS# 250911339719 in Department 518 Meeting ID: 160 5430 7984

One tap mobile +16692545252,,16054307984# US (San Jose) +14154494000,,16054307984# US (US Spanish Line)

---

Dial by your location • +1 669 254 5252 US (San Jose)