Motion for Terminating Sanctions; Motion to Compel; Motion for Monetary Sanctions
23CV007908: PIVETTI vs TORABIAN, DDS, et al. 07/14/2026 Hearing on Motion for Terminating Sanctions in Department 16C
Tentative Ruling
Defendant Maryam Torabian, D.D.S. (Defendant) motion for terminating sanctions or, in the alternative, to compel Plaintiff Mary Pivettis (Plaintiff) compliance with Court Order, and for monetary sanctions is UNOPPOSED and is ruled upon as follows.
On March 10, 2026, the Court granted Defendants unopposed motions to compel Plaintiff to serve responses to request for production (set one), special interrogatories (set one), and form interrogatories (set one). Plaintiff was ordered to serve verified responses, without objections, to the discovery by no later than March 24, 2026.
Plaintiff has not served the responses as ordered. (Declaration of James E. Wagner- Smith, ¶ 10.)
Trial is scheduled for September 22, 2026.
For misuse of the discovery process, such as disobeying a court order to provide discovery, the Court may impose a terminating sanction by one of the following: an order striking out the pleadings or parts of the pleadings of any party engaging in the misuse of the discovery process or an order dismissing the action, or any part of the action, of that party. (See, e.g. Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2023.010(d) and (g), 2023.030(d)(1) and (3).) The Court may also impose issue, evidentiary, or monetary sanctions. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.030(a), (b), and (c).)
A trial court must be cautious when imposing a terminating sanction because the sanction eliminates a partys fundamental right to a trial, thus implicating due process rights. The trial court should select a sanction that is tailored to the harm caused by the withheld discovery. Sanctions should be appropriate to the dereliction, and should not exceed that which is required to protect the interests of the party who has been denied discovery. (Creed-21 v. City of Wildomar (2017) 18 Cal.App.5th 690
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York, Inc. (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 566, 604- 605.) The sanctions the court may impose are such as are suitable and necessary to enable the party seeking discovery to obtain the objects of the discovery he seeks but the court may not impose sanctions which are designed not to accomplish the objects of the discovery but to impose punishment. [Citations.] (Petersen v. City of Vallejo (1968) 259 Cal.App.2d 757, 782.)
The discovery statutes thus evince an incremental approach to discovery sanctions, starting with monetary sanctions and ending with the ultimate sanction of termination. (Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 967, 992.) Although in extreme
23CV007908: PIVETTI vs TORABIAN, DDS, et al. 07/14/2026 Hearing on Motion for Terminating Sanctions in Department 16C
cases a court has the authority to order a termination sanction as a first measure (see Miranda v. 21st Century Ins. Co. (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 913, 928-929; Alliance Bank v. Murray (1984) 161 Cal.App.3d 1, 10), a terminating sanction should generally not be imposed until the court has attempted less severe alternatives and found them to be unsuccessful and/or the record clearly shows lesser sanctions would be ineffective. (See Van Sickle v. Gilbert (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1495, 1516; Doppes, 174 Cal.App.4th at 992; Oliveros v. County of Los Angeles (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 1389, 1399.)
The Court finds that terminating sanctions are not appropriate at this time. Accordingly, the motion for terminating sanctions is DENIED.
Defendants motion to compel Plaintiffs compliance is GRANTED. By no later than July 28, 2026, Plaintiff shall serve verified written responses, without objections, to Defendants request for production (set one), special interrogatories (set one), and form interrogatories (set one).
Plaintiff is cautioned that continued failure to comply with court orders may result in further sanctions, up to and including terminating sanctions.
Defendants request for monetary sanctions against Plaintiff is GRANTED in the reduced amount of $430 (2 hrs x $185 hourly rate + $60 filing fee). Sanctions shall be paid by no later than August 14, 2026. If not paid by that date, Defendant may prepare for the Courts 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.)
This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc. §1019.5; CRC Rule 3.1312.)
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 Department 16C Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-1475 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
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
23CV007908: PIVETTI vs TORABIAN, DDS, et al. 07/14/2026 Hearing on Motion for Terminating Sanctions in Department 16C
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 16C Zoom Link is https://saccourt-cagov.zoomgov.com/j/16030877014 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 160 3087 7014. 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 on the Court Reporter Services webpage available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://saccourt.ca.gov/general-information/court-reporter-servicestranscripts. Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://saccourt.ca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/227/639084034465370000.
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 Courts 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 forward the form to the Court Reporters Office and an official reporter will be provided.