MOSLEY, et al. vs MCAFEE, LLC

24CV016009: MOSLEY, et al. vs MCAFEE, LLC 05/13/2026 Hearing on Motion for Sanctions in Department 8C

Tentative Ruling

NOTICE:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that any oral arguments regarding this tentative ruling will be heard at 1:30 p.m. in Department 8C in the Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye Courthouse at 500 G Street, Sacramento, CA, the Hon. Richard C. Miadich presiding.

Any party who wishes to contest the tentative ruling below must:

(1) request a hearing by calling the Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-2615, by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the noticed hearing date, and 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 (c) confirming that they have notified the opposing party of their intention to appear; and

(2) advise the opposing party of the location and time of hearing pursuant to Local Rule 1.06.

If a hearing is not requested by 4:00 p.m. on the Court day before the noticed hearing date, the tentative ruling will become the final order of the Court.

If a hearing is requested, the Court prefers in-person attendance by the parties. However, parties may appear by Zoom unless the Court specifically orders in-person attendance. Parties choosing to appear by Zoom are reminded, however, that a Zoom appearance is still a formal appearance before the Court. Parties appearing via Zoom should do so from a quiet location, free from undue distractions, and wear attire suitable for an in-person court appearance.

The parties may join the Zoom session for hearing on the tentative ruling by audio and/or video through the following link:

https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16039062174

SIP Address:

16039062174@sip.zoomgov.com

(833) 568-8864

ID: 16039062174

24CV016009: MOSLEY, et al. vs MCAFEE, LLC 05/13/2026 Hearing on Motion for Sanctions in Department 8C

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 be forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

TENTATIVE RULING

***NOTICE: EFFECTIVE APRIL 13, 2026, THIS DEPARTMENT HAS MOVED TO THE TANI G. CANTIL-SAKAUYE COURTHOUSE LOCATED AT 500 G STREET SACRAMENTO, CA. ALL MOTIONS NOTICED FOR DEPARTMENT 28 WILL BE HEARD IN DEPARTMENT 8C OF THE NEW COURTHOUSE. ALL PAPERS FOR THIS DEPARTMENT MUST BE FILED AT THIS NEW LOCATION AND WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED AT THE HALL OF JUSTICE. ALL HEARINGS WILL TAKE PLACE AT THIS NEW LOCATION***

Defendant McAfee, LLC’s (“Defendant”) motion for discovery sanctions against Plaintiffs Ryan Willoughby, Ross Jones, Angel Hernandez, Sydney Pearl, and Lisa Alexander as well as Plaintiffs’ counsel, Rockford Hearn, is UNOPPOSED and ruled upon as follows.

Defendant is admonished for failing to comply with California Rules of Court rule 3.1110(f)(4), which requires electronic exhibits to include electronic bookmarks linking to the first page of each exhibit. Failure to comply with this rule in the future may result in a motion being dropped without consideration.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV016009: MOSLEY, et al. vs MCAFEE, LLC 05/13/2026 Hearing on Motion for Sanctions in Department 8C

Defendant’s request for judicial notice is granted.

Defendant seeks sanctions based on the identified plaintiffs’ and their counsel’s repeated failures to comply with their discovery obligations and this Court’s discovery orders in this case. Defendant seeks terminating sanctions, issue/evidentiary sanctions, and monetary sanctions. On April 27, 2026, the Court granted Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Thus, Defendant’s motion is DENIED as moot with respect to the requests for terminating sanctions and issue/evidentiary sanctions.

Defendant seeks monetary sanctions against Plaintiffs Willoughby, Jones, Hernandez, and Alexander, and Mr. Hearn. Defendant does not seek sanctions against Pearl because Defendant has learned that Pearl is a minor. (See Notice of Motion, p. 2, fn. 1.) As an initial matter, the Court finds that Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions is not mooted by the grant of Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. For one, judgment has not yet been entered, so the case remains pending. Further, even if judgment had been entered and the case dismissed, a trial court retains jurisdiction to award costs and statutory attorney’s fees following dismissal. (Gorgi v.

Jack in the Box Inc. (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 255, 261; Liu v. Moore (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 745, 751.) Indeed, “[e]ven after a party is dismissed from the action he may still have collateral statutory rights which the court must determine and enforce. These include the right to statutory costs and attorneys fees.” (Frank Annino & Sons Constr. v. McArthur Rests. (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 353, 357.) Thus, the Court addresses Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions on the merits.

The requested monetary sanctions are for expenses Defendant contends it incurred due to Plaintiffs’ failures to appear at their depositions as ordered by the Court on June 10, 2025 pursuant to Defendant’s motion to compel. The Court’s June 10, 2025 order directed Plaintiffs to appear for deposition by no later than August 8, 2025. After the Court’s order, Defendant renoticed the depositions for all plaintiffs in this matter for dates in July. Plaintiffs did not object to the deposition notices.

Defendant’s counsel attempted to confirm that Plaintiffs would attend with Mr. Hearn, but Mr. Hearn largely failed to respond and when he did respond, he provided alternate dates for four of the 10 plaintiffs in this matter and never provided confirmation for the remaining plaintiffs. Plaintiffs Willoughby, Bruns, and Jones failed to appear for their depositions without explanation, and since they were never confirmed Defendant’s counsel took them off calendar. Plaintiff Alexander failed to appear on a date and time selected and confirmed by Hearn, with Hearn informing defense counsel after the scheduled start time that Alexander had been in a car accident three days earlier.

Defendant thus took a notice of nonappearance for Alexander. Hearn never responded about Alexander’s availability for deposition after that. After Alexander’s scheduled deposition date, Hearn offered new deposition dates for some plaintiffs, including Hernandez on July 23 at 10 a.m. However, on the night before Hernandez’s scheduled deposition, Hearn wrote to defense counsel, while defense counsel was on a flight to

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV016009: MOSLEY, et al. vs MCAFEE, LLC 05/13/2026 Hearing on Motion for Sanctions in Department 8C

Sacramento, that Hernandez would not appear. Defendant took Hernandez’s nonappearance, and Hearn did not respond to subsequent requests to reschedule. Hearn also offered a new date for Willoughby of July 29, but Willoughby and Hearn failed to appear on that date.

“Discovery sanctions are intended to remedy discovery abuse, not to punish the offending party. Accordingly, sanctions should be tailored to serve that remedial purpose, should not put the moving party in a better position than he would otherwise have been had he obtained the requested discovery, and should be proportionate to the offending party’s misconduct.” (Williams v. Russ (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1215, 1223.)

The Court finds that monetary sanctions are warranted here against Plaintiffs Willoughby, Jones, Hernandez, and Alexander, and their counsel, Mr. Hearn, for failure to comply with the Court’s order to appear for their depositions. When a party who has been ordered to attend his or her deposition pursuant to a motion to compel attendance under Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450(a) thereafter fails to obey that order, the trial court “may impose a monetary sanction against that deponent or against the party with whom that party deponent is affiliated, and in favor of any party who, in person or by attorney, attended in the expectation that the deponent’s testimony would be taken pursuant to that order.” (Code Civ.

Proc. § 2025.450(h).) Additionally, “The court may impose a monetary sanctions ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.030(a).) Failing to submit to an authorized method of discovery and disobeying a court order to provide discovery are both misuses of the discovery process. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.010(d), (g).)

Thus, the Discovery Act authorizes, though does not compel, monetary sanctions in this scenario against both Plaintiffs and Mr. Hearn. (See City of Los Angeles v. PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP (2024) 17 Cal.5th 46, 74 [holding that section 2023.030 authorizes trial court to impose sanctions “to address egregious forms of misconduct not addressed elsewhere in the Act”].)

In determining the appropriate amount of monetary sanctions for misuse of the discovery, trial courts must be guided by the principles of causation and reasonableness. (Cornerstone Realty Advisors, LLC. Summit Healthcare REIT, Inc. (2020) 56 Cal.App.5 th 771, 790-791. Monetary sanctions for misuse of the discovery process “may only be imposed based on attorney fees and costs ‘incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct.’ (Id. at 790, italics in original.) Moreover, the “amount of monetary sanctions is limited to the ‘reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees’ that a party incurred as a result of the discovery abuse. The principle of reasonableness means a trial court has discretion to reduce the amount of fees and costs requested as a discovery sanction in order to reach a reasonable award.” (Id. at 791, italics in original, citations omitted.)

Defendant requests monetary sanctions in the amount of $62,046.56[1] based on:

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV016009: MOSLEY, et al. vs MCAFEE, LLC 05/13/2026 Hearing on Motion for Sanctions in Department 8C

(1) its attorney’s fees for preparing for court-ordered depositions that plaintiffs and Hearn did not appear for; (2) the travel costs associated with those depositions; (3) the expenses for securing deposition space and court-reporting personnel, to the extent they weren’t refunded; and (4) the time McAfee’s lawyers have spent (and will spend) drafting these “moving papers, reviewing any opposition papers, drafting any reply papers, and attending the hearing on the motion.”

(Mot. MPA, p. 14:18-23, fn. omitted.)

Travel Costs and Expenses for Securing Deposition Space and Transcription Services

The Court finds that it is appropriate to award Defendant the requested costs of $4,334.05 incurred for traveling to the depositions and securing deposition space and court reporters. These costs satisfy both principles of causation and reasonableness.

Attorney’s Fees for Preparing for Plaintiffs’ Depositions

The Court declines to award monetary sanctions for attorney’s fees in preparing for Plaintiffs’ depositions. Defendant’s counsel would have to prepare for the depositions whether or not Plaintiffs appeared for their depositions, and these expenses were not incurred as a result of Plaintiffs’ failures to appear. (See Cornerstone, supra, 56 Cal.App.5th at 797-798 [upholding trial court’s denial of request for attorneys fees incurred in preparing a summary adjudication motion and preparing for trial because such costs were too attenuated from the discovery misuse to satisfy the principle of causation]; Department of Forestry & Fire Protection v.

Howell (2017) 18 Cal.App.5th 154, 193 [finding that trial court abused its discretion by not finding that the fees it awarded as sanctions “were incurred as a result of the discovery abuses”], overruled on other grounds by Presbyterian Camp & Conference Centers, Inc. v. Superior Court (2021) 12 Cal.5th 493, 516, fn. 17.).) Thus, Defendant’s request for attorney’s fees incurred in preparing for the Plaintiffs’ depositions is too attenuated to satisfy the principle of causation given the discovery misuse at issue here.

Attorney’s Fees Incurred in Preparing this Motion

The Court finds that Defendant is entitled to reimbursement for attorney’s fees incurred in filing the present motion, although not in the amount sought. Defendant seeks $40,206.38 in sanctions for the fees incurred filing this motion, which is based on 62.7 hours at a discounted rate of $641.25 per hour. While the Court agrees that this motion required counsel to review and organize copious amounts of correspondence involving multiple plaintiffs, the Court still finds this amount unreasonable and thus reduces it to $25,650.00 based on 40 hours at $641.25 per

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV016009: MOSLEY, et al. vs MCAFEE, LLC 05/13/2026 Hearing on Motion for Sanctions in Department 8C

hour. (See Parker v. Wolters Kluwer United States, Inc. (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 285, 294.)

The Court also declines to impose sanctions against Plaintiffs themselves. Again, monetary sanctions in this scenario, where a party has failed to obey a court order to appear at deposition, are discretionary. Given the history of discovery abuses in this case, as well as in other similar cases filed by Mr. Hearn, it is apparent that the misconduct at issue here was committed at Mr. Hearn’s direction. Indeed, the Court finds it reasonable to infer that Plaintiffs had little or no involvement at all in the discovery abuse.

Accordingly, Defendant’s motion for monetary sanctions is GRANTED as follows. Sanctions are imposed against Mr. Hearn and in favor of Defendant in the amount of $29,984.05, representing $25,650.00 for attorney’s fees related to this motion based on 40 hours at $641.25 per hour, plus $4,334.05 for costs incurred in attending the depositions at which Plaintiffs did not appear. Sanctions are imposed against Mr. Hearn only.

Mr. Hearn shall pay the awarded sanctions to Defendant’s counsel by no later than May 27, 2026, and if not paid by that date, Defendant may prepare for the Court’s signature a formal order granting the sanctions, which may then be enforced as a separate judgment. (Newland v. Superior Court (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 608, 615.)

Defendant shall provide notice of this order and filed proof of service by no later than May 18, 2026.

[1] The Court notes that Defendant supports its request for costs and fees with declarations by attorneys Benjamin D.

Williams, David E. Meadows, and Ryan D. Watstein. Each of these declarations, however, indicates that it was executed in Georgia, not California. However, none of these attorneys’ declarations states that “I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct” as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 2015.5(b). Plaintiffs did not oppose the motion or otherwise object to these attorneys’ declarations. Thus, the Court considers any such objection by Plaintiffs waived.