TTLC SACRAMENTO - CHAMPION OAKS LLC vs ELK GROVE RESERVE, et al.

On September 25, 2024, the Court granted Plaintiff’s unopposed motions to compel all

23CV002863: TTLC SACRAMENTO - CHAMPION OAKS LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY vs ELK GROVE RESERVE, A CALIFORNIA PARTNERSHIP, et al. 07/29/2025 Hearing on Motion for Terminating Sanctions in Department 54

11 Defendants to serve verified responses to Plaintiff’s special interrogatories and form interrogatories by October 9, 2024. The Court denied the motion to compel verified responses to Plaintiff’s requests for admissions on the basis that unverified responses were tantamount to no responses at all and the proper remedy was a motion to deem matters admitted. (Minute Orders, 09/25/2024.) Plaintiff then filed a motion to deem matters admitted against all 11 Defendants, which the Court dropped on May 15, 2025, due to Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the new Local Rule 2.31(E). On October 2, 2024, the Court granted Plaintiff’s unopposed motion for monetary sanctions due to the 11 Defendants’ failure to comply with the Court’s July 10, 2024, order. The Court ordered the 11 Defendants to pay $2,510 in sanctions no later than November 2, 2024.

Plaintiff contends that the 11 Defendants have failed to serve verified responses to Plaintiff’s special interrogatories and form interrogatories as ordered, and failed to pay the $2,510 in sanctions. (Young Decl. ¶ 20.)

Plaintiff also argues it noticed the depositions of defendants Thomas P. Kerr, Margot K. Thelander, and Mary Eugenia Shamouel for June 13, 2024. (Young Decl. ¶ 13.) Defendants’ counsel reported that he and the noticed deponents would be appearing for the depositions, but less than two hours before the depositions were set to begin, Defendants’ counsel emailed counsel for Plaintiff and stated he needed to cancel the depositions. (Young Decl. ¶ 13.)

On July 10, 2025, the Court granted Plaintiff’s counsel’s motion to withdraw.

Plaintiff now seeks terminating, issue, and/or monetary sanctions due to the 11 Defendants’ failure to cooperate with discovery in this case and violation of the Court’s four discovery orders. Plaintiff argues the 11 Defendants’ history of discovery abuses warrant terminating and issue sanctions because they have failed to provide any verified discovery responses, produce any documents, or pay the Court ordered sanctions, all of which has prevented Plaintiff from moving this case forward.

For misuse of the discovery process, including 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 has broad discretion in selecting the appropriate sanctions under the factual circumstances before it. (Cedars-Sinai Medical Center v. Superior Court (1998) 18 Cal.4th 1, 12.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV002863: TTLC SACRAMENTO - CHAMPION OAKS LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY vs ELK GROVE RESERVE, A CALIFORNIA PARTNERSHIP, et al. 07/29/2025 Hearing on Motion for Terminating Sanctions in Department 54

The Court may impose sanctions that 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. (Caryl Richards, Inc. v. Superior Court (1961) 188 Cal.App.2d 300, 304.) “The penalty 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.” (Deyo v.

Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 793.) Terminating sanctions are to be used sparingly because of the drastic effect of their application. (Lopez v. Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York, Inc. (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 566, 604.) Sanctions are generally imposed in an incremental approach, with terminating sanctions being a last resort. (Lopez v. Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York, Inc. (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 566, 604.)

Cabayan and the Additional Defendants have opposed via their separate counsel, each of which substituted into this case in March and April of 2025 respectively. All 11 Defendants contend that they have now complied with all of the Court’s orders regarding sanctions and discovery responses. Cabayan’s counsel attaches to his declaration eight exhibits that demonstrate the outstanding monetary sanctions and discovery responses have been provided. (Declaration of Phil Foster (“Foster Decl.”), ¶¶ 1-13, Exhs. A-H.) Specifically, the $2,510 and $1,100 in monetary sanctions were paid via checks dated December 30, 2024. (Foster Decl. ¶¶ 5-6, Exhs. A-B.) The outstanding discovery responses from Cabayan were served on January 2 and 13, 2025. (Foster Decl. ¶¶ 7-12, Exhs. C-H.)

The Additional Defendants’ counsel also attaches eight exhibits that demonstrate the outstanding monetary sanctions and discovery responses have now been provided. (Declaration of Stephan M. Brown, ¶¶ 1-10, Exhs. 1-8.) The monetary sanctions were paid via checks dated December 30, 2024, and outstanding discovery responses were served on December 31, 2024, and January 2, 3, 6, 8, and 13, 2025. (Id.)

The 11 Defendants’ have now demonstrated full compliance with the multiple discovery orders in this case and are now complying with their discovery obligations. Thus, under the circumstances, the Court in its discretion is not persuaded that terminating or issue sanction are warranted. Accordingly, the motion for terminating and issue sanctions is DENIED. The Court notes, however, that although terminating sanctions have been denied, a continued failure to comply with Court Orders may warrant terminating or evidentiary sanctions.

However, Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions against the 11 Defendants, jointly

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV002863: TTLC SACRAMENTO - CHAMPION OAKS LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY vs ELK GROVE RESERVE, A CALIFORNIA PARTNERSHIP, et al. 07/29/2025 Hearing on Motion for Terminating Sanctions in Department 54

and severally, in the amount of $12,270 (22 hours at the rate of $555 per hour) for bringing this motion is GRANTED, but in the reduced amount of $5,610 (representing 10 hours at the rate of $555, plus the $60 filing fee). Plaintiff filed this motion on November 4, 2024, which seemed to prompt all 11 Defendants’ compliance with the multiple outstanding Court orders regarding monetary sanctions and discovery. Sanctions to be paid no later than August 29, 2025, and, if not paid by that date, Plaintiff 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.)

The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1312, or further notice is required.

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 Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-2615 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 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 53/54 Zoom Link is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept53.54 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 4650 6749. 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 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.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV002863: TTLC SACRAMENTO - CHAMPION OAKS LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY vs ELK GROVE RESERVE, A CALIFORNIA PARTNERSHIP, et al. 07/29/2025 Hearing on Motion for Terminating Sanctions in Department 54

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.