Nelson v. Miller

Defendants’ counsel declares that on 5/9/2025, Plaintiff served unverified Responses to the Written Discovery Requests. (Schick Dec. ¶ 6.) Unverified written discovery responses are tantamount to no responses at all. (Appleton v. Sup.Ct. (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 636.) However, Defendants’ counsel does not declare whether Plaintiff subsequently provided verifications to the Responses, the subsequent meet and confer communications do not reference the failure to provide verifications, and neither the Notice of Motion nor the Moving MPA request an Order compelling Plaintiff to provide verifications. Therefore, the Court assumes that Plaintiff subsequently served verifications to her Responses. RG21091934: Nelson VS Miller 07/07/2026 Hearing on Motion for Terminating Sanctions filed by Dyonne Yi (Defendant); Kent Miller (Defendant) CRS# 531104133181 in Department 512

Defendants assert that Plaintiff’s written discovery Responses, whether or not verified, are substantively defective and that Plaintiff has not produced all documents requested in the two sets of written discovery requests. However, the Notice of Motion does not request an Order compelling further responses pursuant to CCP § 2031.310 or compelling production of documents pursuant to § 2031.320. Nor do the moving papers contain the mandatory separate statement for a motion to compel further responses to SROG or RFPD. (CRC Rule 3.1345(a)(2) and (3).)

With respect to the IME ordered to be conducted by Monday, 6/9/2025, Defendants’ counsel declares that the parties agreed the IME would be conducted on 6/30/2025. However, the IME did not go forward on 6/30/2025, because Plaintiff claimed on 6/26/2025 that she had been hospitalized after a fall. (Schick Dec. ¶ 22.) Between 7/14/2025 and 8/5/2025, Defendant’s counsel contacted Plaintiff’s counsel four times regarding the IME, to which contacts Plaintiff’s counsel did not respond. (Id. at ¶¶ 23-24.)

However, despite an Order of Court Ordering Plaintiff to submit to an IME by 6/30/2026, as the parties had mutually agreed, Defendants did not bring a motion to compel the IME and for monetary sanctions. Instead, Defendants apparently took no further action until 1/23/2026. (Id. at ¶ 25.) The parties ultimately agreed that the IME would be conducted on 4/21/2026, and Plaintiff appeared for the IME on that date. Defendants claim Plaintiff left in the middle of the IME, such that it was not completed. (Id. at ¶ 27.) However, Defendants’ counsel’s declaration lays no foundation for his personal knowledge regarding what did or did not happen at the IME. Instead, his declaration suggests that this information is inadmissible hearsay.

Defendants’ request for terminating, issue and evidentiary sanctions is DENIED. The Court has not previously imposed monetary or other sanctions against Plaintiff in this action, and in most circumstances the Court may not properly impose any of terminating, issue or evidentiary sanctions as the first sanctions against a party in an action. (Lopez v. Watchtower Bible & Tract Society (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 566, 605.) Moreover, a party cannot sit on its hands for more than a year and then bring motions for such sanctions on the eve of trial, when the party could have timely brought further motions to compel to create the record of the opposing party’s noncompliance necessary to impose such sanctions.

The Court also DENIES Defendants’ Request for Monetary Sanctions. The Court cannot on this record make any determination that Plaintiff failed to comply with her discovery obligations, and the moving papers do not seek orders compelling further responses, further production of documents or a continuation of Plaintiff’s IME.

The Court has no record that any Opposition papers were filed on this motion, and Plaintiff did not provide electronic courtesy copies to dept512courtesycopy@alameda.courts.ca.gov, Dept. 512’s email address for that purpose. The Court’s civil filing department has been experiencing delays in posting filed documents to eCourt, the Court’s electronic case filing system. Thus, the

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

RG21091934: Nelson VS Miller 07/07/2026 Hearing on Motion for Terminating Sanctions filed by Dyonne Yi (Defendant); Kent Miller (Defendant) CRS# 531104133181 in Department 512 extent that Plaintiff timely filed Opposition papers to the Motion for Sanctions and wishes the Court to consider Plaintiff’s Opposition arguments, Plaintiff must timely contest this Tentative Ruling and present those arguments at the hearing.

CONTESTING TENTATIVE RULINGS

PLEASE NOTE: If any party contests the tentative ruling, the hearing on the motion will occur remotely via the court's own video-conferencing system.

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 date.

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

First, the party must notify Department 512, by email at Dept512@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."

Parties may appear via videoconference, using the Zoom.com website or application.

TO CONNECT TO ZOOM:

Join the meeting using the following link: https://www.zoomgov.com/j/16057661931 Join the meeting by Phone:

Meeting ID: 160 5766 1931

1 669 254 5252, 16057661931# US (San Jose) 1 669 216 1590, 16057661931# US (San Jose) 833 568 8864 US Toll-free