WHALEN v. VAIL RESORTS, INC., ET AL.

1 Plaintiff brings this lawsuit as an individual and as the alleged successor-in-interest to

the Estate of Wesley Whalen.

LAW AND MOTION CALENDAR JULY 17, 2026

January 27, 2026. (Rivera Decl., ¶ 31 & Ex. 13.) Therefore, plaintiff’s deadline to comply

with the court’s order was March 2, 2026 (30 calendar days, extended by two court days

for electronic service). As of the date of filing the instant motion for terminating

sanctions (May 1, 2026), plaintiff had not served her verified discovery responses or

paid the monetary sanction. Plaintiff’s counsel declares that plaintiff has since complied.

(Guasco Decl., ¶¶ 3, 4.) Further, plaintiff voluntarily paid an additional $500 for

defendants’ costs incurred bringing the instant motion for terminating sanctions.

(Guasco Decl., ¶ 4.) Where, as here, a party fails to obey an order compelling a response, “the court may

make those orders that are just, including the imposition of an issue sanction, an

evidence sanction, or a terminating sanction .... In lieu of or in addition to this sanction,

this court may impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with

Section 2023.010).” (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (c) [interrogatories], 2031.300,

subd. (c) [document production].)

Defendant argues that terminating sanctions are appropriate in this case. The court

disagrees. “ ‘Discovery sanctions “should be appropriate to the dereliction, and should

not exceed that which is required to protect the interests of the party entitled to but

denied discovery.” ’ [Citation.] If a lesser sanction fails to curb abuse, a greater sanction

is warranted: continuing misuses of the discovery process warrant incrementally

harsher sanctions until the sanction is reached that will cure the abuse. ‘A decision to order terminating 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 discovery rules, the trial court is justified in

imposing the ultimate sanction.’ ” (Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc. (2009) 174

Cal.App.4th 967, 992.)

Here, although plaintiff failed to comply with the court’s January 23, 2026, order, which is an abuse of the discovery process, the court is unaware of any prior discovery

LAW AND MOTION CALENDAR JULY 17, 2026

abuses by plaintiff in this case. Additionally, the court notes that defendants did not

request, and the court did not impose, any monetary sanction when it granted

defendants’ motions to compel (defendants requested a monetary sanction related to

their motion to deem matters admitted only). Further, plaintiff served verified discovery

responses and paid the monetary sanction prior to this hearing, and also paid an

additional $500 to defendants’ counsel for costs in bringing the instant motion.

Under the circumstances, the court finds that terminating sanctions are not justified

and therefore defendants’ motion is denied.

TENTATIVE RULING # 1: THE MOTION IS DENIED. NO HEARING ON THIS MATTER WILL

BE HELD (LEWIS v. SUPERIOR COURT (1999) 19 CAL.4TH 1232, 1247), UNLESS A NOTICE

OF INTENT TO APPEAR AND REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT IS TRANSMITTED

ELECTRONICALLY THROUGH THE COURT’S WEBSITE OR BY TELEPHONE TO THE COURT

AT (530) 573-3042 BY 4:00 P.M. ON THE DAY THE TENTATIVE RULING IS ISSUED.

NOTICE TO ALL PARTIES OF AN INTENT TO APPEAR MUST BE MADE BY TELEPHONE OR

IN PERSON. PROOF OF SERVICE OF SAID NOTICE MUST BE FILED PRIOR TO OR AT THE

HEARING.