MARTINEZ vs THE SAVE MART COMPANIES, LLC.

DISCUSSION 24CV060362: MARTINEZ vs THE SAVE MART COMPANIES, LLC. 07/27/2026 Hearing on Motion for Sanctions filed by The Save Mart Companies, LLC. (Defendant) CRS# 236254407921 in Department 15 Terminating, Issue, and Evidence Sanctions

Having considered the totality of the circumstances as presented in this motion, the Court declines to award terminating, issue, or evidence sanctions (including the requested jury instruction) at this time. Despite significant delays in production, the emails at the heart of this motion between Plaintiff’s counsel and lien care providers California Back and Pain Specialists (“CBPS”) and BrainCare Solutions were produced earlier this year. (See Reddiconto Decl. ¶ 24 (confirming receipt of CBPS emails) and Kaludi Decl. ¶ 4 (confirming production of BrainCare emails).)

The Court finds no evidence of spoliation or alteration of evidence that warrants terminating sanctions. (See Williams v. Russ (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1215, 1223 [“A terminating sanction is appropriate in the first instance without a violation of prior court orders in egregious cases of intentional spoliation of evidence.”].) Nor does the Court find evidence of prejudice at this stage of the case so significant as to warrant terminating sanctions based on the type of “stonewalling” discussed in Doppes v.

Bentley Motors, Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 967, 993. The Court may revisit this issue at or near trial if more evidence of prejudice surfaces.

Save Mart’s evidence shows that for more than six months Plaintiff withheld nonprivileged emails with lien care providers that were requested in, and responsive to, requests for production 27 and 29. Plaintiff initially objected to both requests, but later amended his responses to state that he found no responsive documents after a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry. (Reddiconto Decl. Ex. 5.) After Save Mart’s deposition of CBPS custodian of records revealed the existence of emails between Plaintiff’s counsel and CBPS, Plaintiff provided a privilege log identifying six responsive emails dating back to June 2025. (Id. 8, Ex. 9.)

This prompted Save Mart, on 4/15/2026, to file a motion to compel the production of further communications responsive to requests 27 and 29. A few days after the motion was filed, Plaintiff produced 67 emails between Plaintiff’s counsel and CBPS that dated back to March 2024. (Id. ¶ 9, 24.) Plaintiff does not meaningfully address the delay, and states only that the emails were “voluntarily” produced before the Court ruled on Save Mart’s motion and that to the “best of” Plaintiff’s counsel’s knowledge, no responsive documents were destroyed or (ultimately) withheld. (Kaludi Decl. ¶¶ 3, 9.)

In sum, it took Plaintiff approximately six months to produce over 60 emails that were responsive to Save Mart’s discovery requests and withheld for reasons that are unclear. These facts do not reflect good faith participation by Plaintiff in the discovery process.

In its 5/18/2026 order, the Court denied the substantive portion of Save Mart’s motion to compel further responses to RFPs 27 and 29 because (as noted above) Plaintiff had produced the missing communications by 5/12/2026, but found good cause to award $3,936 in monetary sanctions; however, the Court denied Save Mart’s request for evidentiary and issue sanctions without prejudice. (See Order dated 5/18/2026.) The present motion appears to rely on the same evidence of delayed production. Save Mart argues that it has incurred “hefty financial costs to uncover this non-privileged responsive information,” but this bears more on the appropriateness of awarding monetary sanctions than precluding Plaintiff from introducing evidence at trial due to delayed production. The facts of this case are distinguishable from the facts of Karlsson v. Ford Motor

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

24CV060362: MARTINEZ vs THE SAVE MART COMPANIES, LLC. 07/27/2026 Hearing on Motion for Sanctions filed by The Save Mart Companies, LLC. (Defendant) CRS# 236254407921 in Department 15 Company (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 1201 (cited by both parties), in that Plaintiff’s delayed production does not appear to have prevented Save Mart from conducting any discovery, which could more clearly indicate prejudice. (See e.g., Karlsson, 140 Cal.App.4th at 1220 [noting that “because Ford prevented TCT from conducting discovery about the warnings issue, no one will ever know what other documents or information Ford had in its possession concerning its knowledge that the lap belts were dangerous or that different warnings apart from those in the owner's manual were required.”].)

Nor does the Court find a jury instruction appropriate in this instance because unlike Bihun v. AT&T Information Systems, Inc. (1993) 13 Cal.App.4th 976, Plaintiff ultimately produced the requested emails (albeit six months later), thus there is no evidence of the evidence suppression that occurred in that case. Accordingly, the Court denies the request for a jury instruction without prejudice.

Save Mart cites another basis for this motion: Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s 4/6/2026 order granting Save Mart’s motion to compel further responses to RFAs, Set One. The Court found that Plaintiff’s responses were “evasive and fail to comply with CCP section 2033.220,” and ordered Plaintiff to serve verified, code-compliant, supplemental responses to RFAs 15, 31-37, 42, 43, 53, 55, 79, 82-84, and 99 by 4/20/2026. (Reddiconto Decl. Ex. 17 [Order dated 4/6/2026].) Save Mart contends that Plaintiff’s supplemental responses to these requests remain evasive because they “continue to refer to documentation and he alleges that he does not recall the symptoms and treatment he is being asked to admit.” (Mot. at p. 8; Reddiconto Decl.

Ex. 18 [Supp. Resp. to RFAs, Set One].) The Court agrees that Plaintiff’s supplemental responses may not comply with the 4/6/2026 order, but Save Mart did not identify any efforts to meet and confer regarding deficiencies in the supplemental responses. Accordingly, the Court declines to impose evidence or issue sanctions on that basis. The Court does not address additional alleged discovery violations identified in Save Mart’s reply brief that occurred after the motion was filed.

Monetary Sanctions

“The court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct.” (CCP § 2023.030(a).) The Court finds good cause to award some monetary sanctions in light of Plaintiff’s delayed production.

The Court declines to award the full sanctions requested by Save Mart. First, the amount of sanctions requested in Save Mart’s motion ($31,446.50 - see Notice at p. 2 and Memorandum at p. 15) differs from the amount of sanctions identified in Save Mart’s supporting declaration ($28,163.50 – see Reddiconto Decl. ¶ 41). Second, Save Mart’s evidence consists of 39 pages of time entries dating back to 11/24/2025 and includes fees related to depositions and other matters that are not clearly related to Plaintiff’s foot-dragging. (E.g., 1/21/2026 entry for appearing at deposition of lien provider Adolfo Salcido; 2/3/2026 entry for appearing at deposition of Luci Tupou.) Thus, the Court is unable to determine which fees are not cumulative of fees already

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

24CV060362: MARTINEZ vs THE SAVE MART COMPANIES, LLC. 07/27/2026 Hearing on Motion for Sanctions filed by The Save Mart Companies, LLC. (Defendant) CRS# 236254407921 in Department 15 awarded in the related motion to compel further responses, or which were incurred irrespective of Plaintiff’s failure to produce documents in a timely manner.

Accordingly, Save Mart is awarded a total of $5,000 in reasonable attorneys’ fees against Plaintiff’s attorney Ike M. Kaludi. Sanctions are to be paid no later than August 5, 2026.