ALEXANDER vs PETER J. KIM, DDS A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION, et al.

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:

Plaintiff Patricia Alexander’s (“Plaintiff”) motion to compel Defendant in pro per Peter Kim (“Defendant”) to appear and testify at his deposition and for sanctions is UNOPPOSED and GRANTED as follows.

This is an employment action arising from Plaintiff’s former employment with Sierra Oaks Dental.

On July 10, 2025, the Court granted Plaintiff’s previous motion to compel Defendant’s

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV007585: ALEXANDER vs PETER J. KIM, DDS A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION, et al. 12/10/2025 Hearing on Motion to Compel Attendance at Deposition and Request for Sanctions in Department 28

attendance at his deposition. (See Minute Order, dated 7/10/2025.) The Court ordered Defendant to appear for his deposition on July 28, 2025 and to pay sanctions in the amount of $2,107.50. (Ibid.) Defendant did not serve any objections to Plaintiff’s amended notice of deposition served on July 10, 2025. (Declaration of Nathan Searcy, ¶ 12, 15, Ex. 12, 13.) On July 28, 2025, Plaintiff’s counsel commenced the deposition, but Defendant failed to appear and did not respond to counsel’s attempt to contact him thereafter. (Id., ¶¶ 14, 16, 18, 19, Ex. 15.) Defendant also failed to pay the monetary sanctions as ordered by the Court. (Id., ¶ 17.)

Plaintiff now moves to again compel Defendant to appear and testify at his deposition. Plaintiff also seeks monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,407.50, issue sanctions, evidence sanctions, and terminating sanctions pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 2025.450, 2023.010, and 2023.030.

For misuse of the discovery process, including disobeying a court order to provide discovery, the Court may impose issue, evidence, terminating, or monetary sanctions. (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2023.010, subds. (d) and (g), 2023.030, subds. (a)-(d).) 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.)

Here, Defendant failed to comply with the Court’s order to appear at his deposition and did not serve objections or communicate that he would not appear. Additionally, Defendant has failed to oppose the motion, which the Court construes as a concession on the merits. (See D.I. Chadbourne, Inc. v. Superior Court (1964) 60 Cal.2d 723, 728, n.4.) Thus, Plaintiff’s motion is granted as follows.

Defendant shall appear and testify at deposition at 9:00 AM on December 29, 2025 or no later than January 16, 2025, remotely via Zoom. The parties may mutually agree in

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV007585: ALEXANDER vs PETER J. KIM, DDS A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION, et al. 12/10/2025 Hearing on Motion to Compel Attendance at Deposition and Request for Sanctions in Department 28

writing to a different time or date.

The Court finds that additional monetary sanctions are warranted due to Defendant’s failure to comply with the Court’s July 10th order. Thus, Plaintiff is awarded monetary sanctions from Defendant in the amount of $1,407.50 (2 hours at $400/hour, plus $607.50 in court reporter fees). Sanctions to be paid no later than January 9, 2026. 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 Court finds that the requested issue, evidence, and terminating sanctions are not warranted at this time as Plaintiff presents no evidence that Defendant has previously disobeyed other discovery orders. Therefore, the motion is denied with respect to the request for issue, evidence, and terminating sanctions. However, the Court notes that Defendant’s continued failure to comply with the Court’s discovery orders may result in the imposition of more severe sanctions, including terminating sanctions.

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1019.5; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1312.)