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

23CV007585: ALEXANDER vs PETER J. KIM, DDS A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION, et al. 08/12/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Attendance at Deposition in Department 8C

Tentative Ruling

NOTICE:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that any oral arguments regarding this tentative ruling will be heard at 1:30 p.m. in Department 8C in the Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye Courthouse at 500 G Street, Sacramento, CA, the Hon. Richard C. Miadich presiding.

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) 874-8380, 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/j/16039062174

SIP Address:

23CV007585: ALEXANDER vs PETER J. KIM, DDS A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION, et al. 08/12/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Attendance at Deposition in Department 8C

16039062174@sip.zoomgov.com

(833) 568-8864

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

***NOTICE: EFFECTIVE APRIL 13, 2026, THIS DEPARTMENT HAS MOVED TO THE TANI G. CANTIL-SAKAUYE COURTHOUSE LOCATED AT 500 G STREET SACRAMENTO, CA. ALL MOTIONS NOTICED FOR DEPARTMENT 28 WILL BE HEARD IN DEPARTMENT 8C OF THE NEW COURTHOUSE. ALL PAPERS FOR THIS DEPARTMENT MUST BE FILED AT THIS NEW LOCATION AND WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED AT THE HALL OF JUSTICE. ALL HEARINGS WILL TAKE PLACE AT

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV007585: ALEXANDER vs PETER J. KIM, DDS A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION, et al. 08/12/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Attendance at Deposition in Department 8C

THIS NEW LOCATION***

Plaintiff Patricia Alexander’s (“Plaintiff”) motion to compel deposition of Defendant Peter Kim (“Defendant Kim”) to appear and testify at his deposition, and for monetary, issue, evidence, and terminating sanctions for terminating sanctions is unopposed and ruled upon as follows.

Factual and Procedural Background

In this action Plaintiff alleges 17 employment-related causes of action, including discrimination, retaliation, and wage and hour violations, against Defendant Kim and his dental business where Plaintiff was formerly employed.

Plaintiff served the Amended Deposition of Defendant Kim and Requests for Production of Documents on April 17, 2025. (Searcy Decl. ¶ 4, Exhs. 3-4.) Defendant Kim was scheduled to be deposed on May 23, 2025. (Searcy Decl. ¶ 4, Exh. 3.) On May 14, 2024, Plaintiff served Defendant Kim with confirmation of Defendant Kim’s May 23, 2025 deposition, including the Zoom information for the deposition. (Searcy Decl. ¶ 5, Exhs. 5-6.)

On May 23, 2025, Defendant Kim failed to appear for his deposition, did not serve any objections to Plaintiff’s Deposition Notice, and did not send any communication indicating that he would appear. (Searcy Decl. ¶¶ 6-7, Exh. 7.)

On June 5, 2025, Plaintiff filed Plaintiff’s first Motion to Compel Attendance at Deposition and Request for Sanctions. (Searcy Decl. ¶ 11, Exhs. 9-10.)

On June 11, 2025, Plaintiff filed Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Responses to Requests for Production of Documents and Request for Sanctions. (Searcy Decl. ¶1 2, Exhs. 11-12.)

On July 9, 2025, the Court issued a tentative ruling granting Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Attendance at Deposition and granting a reduced amount of Plaintiff’s Request for Sanctions. (Searcy Decl. ¶ 13, Exh. 13.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV007585: ALEXANDER vs PETER J. KIM, DDS A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION, et al. 08/12/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Attendance at Deposition in Department 8C

On July 9, 2025, Plaintiff noticed the Second Amended Deposition of Defendant Kim and served Defendant Sierra Oaks Dental and Defendant Kim with confirmation of Defendant’s Kim’s deposition, including the Zoom information. Defendant Kim was scheduled to be deposed on June 28, 2025. (Searcy Decl. ¶ 14, Exhs. 14-15.)

On July 10, 2025, the Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Attendance at Deposition and Request for Sanctions. The Court ordered Defendant Kim to appear for his deposition on July 28, 2025, and to pay sanctions in a reduced amount of $2,107.50. To date, Defendant Kim has failed to appear for his deposition. (Searcy Decl. ¶15, Exh. 16.)

On July 28, 2025, Defendant Kim again failed to appear for his deposition, did not serve any objections to Plaintiff’s Second Amended Deposition Notice, and did not send any communication indicating that he would appear. (Searcy Decl. ¶¶ 16-17, Exh. 17.)

On September 18, 2025, Plaintiff filed Plaintiff’s second Motion to Compel Attendance at Deposition and Request for Sanctions. (Searcy Decl. ¶22, Exh. 19.)

On October 2, 2025, the Court issued a tentative ruling granting Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Responses to Requests for Production of Documents and and Request for Sanctions. (Searcy Decl. ¶ 24, Exh. 22.)

On October 10, 2025, the Court ordered Defendant Kim to pay sanctions in a reduced amount of $2,107.50. (Searcy Decl. ¶25, Exh. 23.)

On December 10, 2025, the Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Attendance at Deposition and granting a reduced amount of Plaintiff’s Request for Sanctions. (Searcy Decl. ¶28, Exh. 26.)

On December 12, 2025, Plaintiff noticed the Third Amended Deposition of Defendant Kim and served Defendants with confirmation of Defendant’s Kim’s deposition, including the Zoom information. Defendant Kim was scheduled to be deposed on January 7, 2026. (Searcy Decl. ¶29, Exhs. 27-28.)

On January 7, 2026, Defendant Kim again failed to appear for his deposition, did not serve any objections to Plaintiff’s Third Amended Deposition Notice, and did not send

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV007585: ALEXANDER vs PETER J. KIM, DDS A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION, et al. 08/12/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Attendance at Deposition in Department 8C

any communication indicating that he would appear. (Searcy Decl. ¶¶ 30-31, Exh. 29.)

On January 28, 2026, the Court ordered Defendant Kim to pay sanctions in a reduced amount of $1,407.50. Searcy Decl. ¶33, Exh.

31.

After attempting to reach Defendant Kim, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to compel appearance at his deposition, and for monetary, issue, evidence, and terminating sanction.

Trial is currently set in this action for August 25, 2026.

Legal Standard

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 of Civil Procedure §§ 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.)

Discussion

Plaintiff seek monetary sanctions pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030(a), issue sanctions pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030(b), evidence sanctions pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030(c), and terminating sanctions pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030(d).

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV007585: ALEXANDER vs PETER J. KIM, DDS A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION, et al. 08/12/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Attendance at Deposition in Department 8C

Here, Defendant has failed to follow two prior Court orders to appear for his deposition, and continues to avoid his deposition. Considering the importance of Defendant’s Kim’s deposition testimony in Plaintiff’s ability to prove her case, which is set for trial later this month, his repeated violations of Court orders, and his failure to oppose the instant motion, it appears Defendant Kim has intentionally ignored the Court’s orders and his discovery obligations. Under the circumstances, the Court finds that a terminating sanction is warranted.

Defendant’s motion for terminating sanctions is GRANTED.

The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s request for additional monetary, issue, or evidentiary sanctions.

Plaintiff shall submit a formal order and judgment of dismissal for the Court's signature pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1312.