LATISH vs MCDONALD’S CORPORATION, et al.

24CV015944: LATISH vs MCDONALD'S CORPORATION, et al. 08/18/2025 Hearing on Motion for Terminating Sanctions in Department 54

Tentative Ruling

NOTICE:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that any oral arguments regarding this tentative ruling will be heard in Department 28, located at 720 9th Street, Sacramento, CA, the Hon. Richard C. Miadich presiding. Should argument be requested by either party, the requesting party 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, request the hearing, and notify the opposing party of the location and time of hearing pursuant to Local Rule 1.06.

Any party who wishes to contest the tentative ruling below must:

(1) request a hearing by calling the Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-2615, by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the noticed hearing date, and leave a voicemail 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 they have notified the opposing party of their intention to appear; and

(2) advise the opposing party of the location and time of hearing pursuant to Local Rule 1.06.

If a hearing is not requested by 4:00 p.m. on the Court day before the noticed hearing date, the tentative ruling will become the final order of the Court.

If a hearing is requested, the Court prefers in-person attendance by the parties. However, parties may appear by Zoom unless the Court specifically orders in-person attendance. Parties choosing to appear by Zoom are reminded, however, that a Zoom appearance is still a formal appearance before the Court. Parties appearing via Zoom should do so from a quiet location, free from undue distractions, and wear attire suitable for an in-person court appearance.

The parties may join the Zoom session for hearing on the tentative ruling by audio and/or video through the following link:

https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept28

SIP Address:

16039062174@sip.zoomgov.com

(833) 568-8864

24CV015944: LATISH vs MCDONALD'S CORPORATION, et al. 08/18/2025 Hearing on Motion for Terminating Sanctions in Department 54

ID: 16039062174

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.

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.

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant Klair Management Enterprises, Inc.’s (“Defendant”) motion to terminating, issue, evidentiary, and monetary sanctions is UNOPPOSED and ruled upon as follows.

Plaintiff Kiayetta Beverly Latish (“Plaintiff”) filed this action on August 9, 2024. Plaintiff’s complaint includes causes of action for strict liability, breach of warranty, negligence, and negligence per se.

On November 26, 2024, Defendant filed motions to compel Plaintiff to serve responses to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories, Set One, Special Interrogatories, Set One, and Request for Production of Documents, Set One. Plaintiff, then represented by counsel, filed an opposition to the motions. Plaintiff’s opposition noted that belated responses were served, but the responses were not verified and contained objections. On March 27, 2025, the Court granted all three of Defendant’s motions and ordered Plaintiff to serve verified responses, without objections, by April 14, 2025.

Also on March 27, 2025, Plaintiff’s former counsel filed a motion to be relieved as counsel. On June 24, 2025, the Court granted the motion. The order became effective on July 1, 2025.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV015944: LATISH vs MCDONALD'S CORPORATION, et al. 08/18/2025 Hearing on Motion for Terminating Sanctions in Department 54

Defendant filed the present motion on April 30, 2025. Per Defendant’s motion, on April 9, 2025, Plaintiff’s prior counsel’s office informed Defendant’s counsel that since they had lost contact with Plaintiff, they would not be providing the Court-ordered discovery responses. (Kartoshkina Decl., Exh. B.) Although not clearly stated in Defendant’s counsel’s declaration, it appears that Plaintiff has still not served responses. Thus, Defendant moves for terminating sanctions or, alternatively, issue, evidentiary, and/or monetary sanctions based on Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s discovery orders.

Trial in this matter is currently set for July 28, 2026.

For misuse of the discovery process, the Court may impose sanctions, up to and including terminating sanctions. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.030(a)-(d).) Failing to respond to an authorized method of discovery and disobeying a court order to provide discovery both constitute a misuse of the discovery process. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2023.010(d), (g), 2023.030(a)-(d); see also § 2025.450(g)-(h).) 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 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.) 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.) “Although not expressly required by statute, courts have noted that, absent unusual circumstances, nonmonetary sanctions are warranted only if a party willfully fails to comply with a court order.” (Aghaian v. Minassian (2021) 64 Cal.App.5th 603, 618-619.)

Here, the Court finds that terminating sanctions are not appropriate at this time, as no lesser sanction has been imposed. Thus, the Court cannot conclude that a lesser sanction would not induce Plaintiff’s compliance with her discovery obligations. Accordingly, Defendants’ request for terminating sanctions is DENIED.

Moreover, since discovery sanctions are generally imposed incrementally, Defendant’s request for issue and evidentiary sanctions is DENIED.

However, Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions is GRANTED. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.290(c), 2031.300(c).) Sanctions are imposed against Plaintiff in the amount of $810,

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV015944: LATISH vs MCDONALD'S CORPORATION, et al. 08/18/2025 Hearing on Motion for Terminating Sanctions in Department 54

representing three hours at $250 per hour plus the $60 filing fee for this motion. Sanctions shall be paid to Defendant’s counsel by no later than September 15, 2025, and if not paid by that date, Defendant 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.)

Defendant is directed to give notice of this ruling to Plaintiff via mail and to file proof of service within five days of this order.