Smartrise Engineering, Inc. vs. Brent Meline

34-2021-00308769-CU-BC-GDS: Smartrise Engineering, Inc. vs. Brent Meline 07/02/2026 Hearing on Motion for Terminating Sanctions in Department 8A

Smartrise has violated its discovery obligations; violated the Court’s orders in this matter regarding this discovery; and remains in violation of those orders despite having been found in contempt of Court and having been sanctioned and significantly fined. (Ntc. Mot.)

Procedural History:

In support of this request, Alpha Defendants highlight the procedural history in this case, which includes the following prior Orders:

(1) The Court’s September 13, 2024, Order (re: Shannon Arney’s motion for reconsideration of her motion to compel production of documents against Plaintiff Smartrise), granting Arney’s motion to compel production of documents, nos. 1-8. (9/13/24 Order). (2) The Court’s June 6, 2025, Order (re: Arney’s application to hold Smartrise in contempt), finding Smartrise guilty of contempt for its noncompliance with the Court’s September 13, 2024, Order. (6/6/25 Order re: Ruling on Submitted Matter). (3) The Court’s October 10, 2025, Order (re: Alpha’s motion to compel compliance with Smartrise’s agreement to produce documents), granting Alpha’s motion, ordering Smartrise to produce “all responsive documents by November 24, 2025, unless Smartrise and Alpha agree in writing to extend the production deadline[,]” and awarding Alpha monetary sanctions against Smartrise in that amount of $30,605. (10/10/25 Order [underline and emphasis omitted].)

Summary of Arguments:

In relation to these orders (and the corresponding discovery), Alpha Defendants state that Smartrise has since produced copies of the T: Drive and made available an inspection laptop that Smartrise represented contained the source code appendices for Technical Trade Secrets Nos. 1 through 8. During the inspections, Alpha Defendants were able to record file listings and file properties for the source code files Smartrise identified as part of the technical trade secrets claimed. However, according to Alpha Defendants, comparing the obtained source code files to the production of the T: Drive, revealed that certain files were unable to be located in the production, and were “inconsistent with Smartrise’s entire theory of the case.” (Mov.

MPA, pp. 9:20-10:9.) Alpha Defendants explain that this necessitated the propounding of their Special Interrogatories, Set Three. After the Court granted Alpha Defendants’ motion to compel Smartrise’s further responses to these interrogatories (see 3/23/26 Order), and Smartrise provided their responses to the same, it became evident to Alpha Defendants

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2021-00308769-CU-BC-GDS: Smartrise Engineering, Inc. vs. Brent Meline 07/02/2026 Hearing on Motion for Terminating Sanctions in Department 8A

that, “Smartrise was withholding a vast amount of source code files with important and never produced meta data and file parameters.” (Mov. MPA, p. 12:21-22.) In sum, Alpha Defendants argue that Smartrise’s repeated discovery violations and defiance of the Court’s orders have caused severe and irreparable prejudice which would warrant terminating sanctions.

In opposition, Smartrise argues: (1) the motion is procedurally deficient as Alpha Defendants fail to comply with the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 1008, regarding renewal of a prior motion; (2) the discovery at issue concerns Arney’s Demand for Production of Documents, and thus only Arney can properly seek sanctions; (3) Alpha Defendants fail to establish the evidentiary basis for terminating sanctions; (4) Alpha Defendants cannot show the prejudice required for terminating sanctions; and (5) sanctions as severe as terminating sanctions would not be warranted here. Further, among other things, Smartrise represents that it will be “producing source code from the same repository (Bitbucket) as the July 1, 2022 production[,]” which is being done, “solely out of an abundance of caution due to Defendants’ (unsubstantiated) claims of an unproduced source code repository.” (McNairy Decl., ¶ 19.)

In reply, Alpha Defendants maintain that terminating sanctions are appropriate. Alpha Defendants highlight that Smartrise is now producing “source code from the same repository (Bitbucket),” but producing “additional source code from Bitbucket in June 2026 is not compliance with orders requiring all production in October 2024 and November 2025.” (Reply, p. 2:23-24 [emphasis omitted].) Alpha Defendants also contend that this statement does not address the most important “missing materials”: the “Git repository metadata, commit history, revision history, authorship information, access logs, and audit logs.” (Id. at p. 2:24-26.)

Terminating Sanctions are an Extraordinary Remedy of Last Resort:

The Court has broad discretion in the selection of the appropriate sanction to be applied under the factual circumstances. (Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 967, 991, 992.) The Court may impose sanctions that are suitable and necessary to enable the party seeking discovery to obtain the objects of the discovery sought, but the Court may not impose sanctions designed solely 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.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2021-00308769-CU-BC-GDS: Smartrise Engineering, Inc. vs. Brent Meline 07/02/2026 Hearing on Motion for Terminating Sanctions in Department 8A

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.) “[T]he terminating sanction is a drastic penalty that should be used sparingly.” (Ibid.) “Although in extreme cases a court has the authority to order a terminating sanction as a first measure [citations], 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.” (Ibid.)

Having considered the arguments raised by the Parties, the record before the Court does not support a finding that less severe alternatives would be ineffective compared to terminating sanctions. While Alpha Defendants argue that Smartrise has failed to make a complete production, even if true, the Court does not find that this would warrant such a drastic penalty as terminating sanctions. Further, the Court notes that Smartrise has made efforts to comply with its discovery obligations (by producing documents, making available an inspection laptop, etc.) and continues to do so.

While a lesser sanction, such as monetary sanctions, could be appropriate, as the Court has noted in its prior Orders, it has imposed significant monetary sanctions to date. (See, e.g., 11/14/25 Order.) Further, Alpha Defendants do not request any lesser sanction in this motion. Because terminating sanctions are not appropriate at this time, Defendants’ motion is DENIED.

Disposition

Alpha Defendants’ motion for terminating sanctions against Smartrise is DENIED.

Alpha Defendants’ requests for judicial notice are unopposed and GRANTED. The Court takes judicial notice of the existence of the documents but not the truth of the statements contained therein. (Sosinsky v. Grant (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1548, 1564- 70; Kilroy v. State of California (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 140, 145-148.)

Alpha Defendants’ Application to File Under Seal Records Submitted in Support of Reply to Motion for Terminating Sanctions (filed 6/25/26) is unopposed and GRANTED.

To request oral argument on this matter, you must call Department 8A at 916-874-5754 by 4:00 p.m., the court day before this hearing and notification of oral argument must be made to the opposing party/counsel. If no call is made, the tentative ruling becomes the order of the court. (Local Rule 1.06.)

Please check your tentative ruling prior to the next Court date at

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2021-00308769-CU-BC-GDS: Smartrise Engineering, Inc. vs. Brent Meline 07/02/2026 Hearing on Motion for Terminating Sanctions in Department 8A

www.saccourt.ca.gov prior to the above referenced hearing date.

If oral argument is requested, the parties may appear in person or by Zoom with the links below:

To join by Zoom Link - https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16108301121 To join by phone dial (833) 568-8864, ID 16108301121

Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code section 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://saccourt.ca.gov/general-information/court-reporterservices-transcripts. 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 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.

This minute order is effective immediately. Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312(a), no further written order or further notice is necessary.