Michelle Johnson vs. Robert White et al

Superior Court of California, County of Tuolumne Consolidated Calendar Commissioner Steven Streger

Department 5 May 6, 2026 8:30 am DA Case # Date Filed

7 CV67220 Michelle Johnson vs. Robert White et al 05/02/2025

Michelle Johnson Attorney: John Montevideo

Robert White Paradise Shores, LLC Attorney: David Casady Motion Hearing - Compel Answers to Interrogatories Motion Reserved by Plaintiff 619 984 4232 TK Motion Hearing - Compel requests for admission Motion Hearing - Compel for production of documents Motion Hearing - Compel responses to special interrogatories 05/02/2025 Complaint File Tracking 05/09/2025 High Density

Case notes are not tentative rulings. Parties and counsel are expected to appear unless this note indicates that “no appearance is necessary.” Unless directed otherwise, all participants may appear via Zoom: https://tuolumne-courts-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/1615813960?pwd=NTRMT0NwMDg5cnlYdzZ6VnBXWWFsUT09. [Passcode: 123456].

All matters set for hearing in Department 5 are assigned to that department for all pre-trial purposes. Parties retain the right under Cal. Const. art VI §21 to decline consent to the Commissioner serving as a Judge Pro Tem. By participating in the first hearing, or electing not to attend after due notice, parties are deemed to have stipulated to the Commissioner serving as a Judge Pro Tem for the entire case. See CRC 2.816.

This is a personal injury action arising out of a dog bite. Before the Court this day are discovery motions filed by plaintiff, seeking from co-defendant Robert White further responses to the following: form interrogatories, special interrogatories, requests for admissions and document production. Both sides agree that code-compliant responses are presently in the hands of plaintiff, and that these motions are substantively moot. Where the parties differ is with regard to the propriety of sanctions imposed upon defendant for the admitted delay.

Pursuant to CRC 3.1348(a), “the court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed.” Under the Civil Discovery Act, sanctions may be imposed for failing to respond to an authorized method of discovery. See CCP §2023.010. The Code further provides with specific regard to RPDs that sanctions may be imposed when a party provides a response within seven days of the date initially set for hearing on the motion to compel. CCP §2023.050(a)(2).

That did not occur here, so plaintiff’s request for sanctions defaults to CCP §§ 2030.300(d), 2031.310(h), and 2033.290(d) – which provide for the imposition of reasonable sanctions absent one of two exceptions. First, that the responding party acted with “substantial justification.” The term “substantial justification” means “well-grounded in both law and fact,” and requires the responding party to show that its challenged response was valid/adequate at the time. City of Los Angeles v. Superior Court (2017) 9 Cal.App.5th 272, 291; in accord, Deck v. Developers Investment Co., Inc. (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 808, 833 [burden responding to discovery is not justification for delays]. Defense counsel concedes that the objection-only response was merely to preserve objections and that counsel was not expecting actually stand on objection-only responses.

Second, that “other circumstances” make the imposition of a sanction “unjust.” The unjust exception is generally triggered where the party to be sanctioned is impoverished and monetary sanctions “would cause a hardship disproportionate to the discovery misuse.” Kwan Software Engineering, Inc. v. Hennings (2020) 58 Cal.App.5th 57, 77; see also Marriage of Hoch (2026) 119 Cal.App.5th 80, 89. There is no indication here that the sanction would run against defendant personally, and in fact it will not because all defense counsel had to do to avoid the present conundrum was to file a motion for a protective order and halt the discovery train.

Counsel’s hourly rate of $300 is quite reasonable, as is his time estimate of 2.5 hrs for each motion. That brings the sanction request to $810 for each motion.

4/30/2026 3:47 pm