SILVA vs UCS LIMO LLC, DBA UCS LIMO SERVICE, DBA SF COACH LIMO, DBA UCS WORLDWIDE TRANSPORTATION, et al.

24CV076161: SILVA vs UCS LIMO LLC, DBA UCS LIMO SERVICE, DBA SF COACH LIMO, DBA UCS WORLDWIDE TRANSPORTATION, et al. 08/17/2026 Hearing on Motion for Terminating Sanctions filed by DANIEL SILVA (Plaintiff) CRS# 549783454840 in Department 21

Tentative Ruling - 08/17/2026 S. Raj Chatterjee

The Motion of plaintiff for terminating or evidentiary sanctions is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The motion for monetary sanctions is GRANTED

The Court has issued orders compelling responses to Plaintiff’s Set One written discovery on August 19, 2025, October 14, 2025, and December 9, 2025. The Court imposed monetary sanctions twice: $2,000 on August 19, 2025 and $8,830.79 on October 14, 2025

After Plaintiff filed this motion on June 9, 2026, “On July 2, 2026, UCS Limo served supplemental responses to the 30 identified RFAs and Form Interrogatory No. 17.1. UCS Limo served the corresponding verifications on July 6, 2026. On July 15, 2026, UCS Limo served supplemental verified responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One. On July 21, 2026, UCS Limo served supplemental verified responses and document production to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents, Set One.” (Johnson Dec. ¶ 8). UCS Limo states in its brief that it has “paid all monetary sanctions to date” but does not make that statement in a declaration. (Oppo at 2:11-12.)

Terminating and evidentiary sanctions are disproportionate to the discovery lapses.

The Court awards a discovery monetary sanction of $1,700 against Defendant for attorney’s fees for the time related to this motion. (Moving at 11:8-10’ (Molteni Decl. para 18.) Counsel for Defendant must pay the sanction within 30 days of this order.

The Court does not award the requested discovery monetary sanction of $5,028.90 against Defendant for attorney’s fees for the time related to the deposition of UCS Limo employee Cassio Silva. The evidence indicates that Counsel for Defendants stated before the deposition that they represented Cassio Silva and served a deposition objection on 2/25/26, which suggests that Counsel’s instructions to Cassio Silva to not appear at the deposition on 2/26/26 were reasonable.