Bicknell v. Hill Commercial Investments, Inc

willful, preceded by a history of abuse, and the evidence shows that less severe sanctions would not produce compliance with the discovery rules, the trial court is justified in imposing the ultimate sanction.’ [Citation.]” (Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 967, 992.)

On October 30, 2025, the Court granted Defendant’s motion to compel Plaintiff’s responses to Special Interrogatories, ordering Plaintiff to provide responses within 30 days and pay $500.00 in sanctions within 30 days as well. On January 15, 2026, the Court granted Defendant’s motion to compel responses to Request for Production of Documents and ordered Plaintiff to pay an additional $500.00 in sanctions. Defendant’s motion to compel responses to Form Interrogatories was granted on January 22, 2026 with an additional $350.00 in sanctions imposed. To date, Plaintiff has not complied with these numerous court orders, nor has Plaintiff filed an opposition to this motion. Plaintiff has disobeyed the Court’s orders without substantial justification.

Plaintiff is to appear, remotely or in person, if they wish to present any justification for why the ultimate sanction of termination is not warranted.

6. 30-2024-01371125 1. Case Management Conference 2. Motion to Compel Production Bicknell vs. Hill 3. Motion to Compel Production Commercial Investments, Inc Defendant Hill Commercial Investments, Inc. (“Defendant”) moves for an order: (1) compelling Plaintiffs Darwin Bicknell and Lissa Bareno (“Plaintiffs”) to serve initial responses to Defendant’s second set of Requests for Production of Documents; and (2) imposing monetary sanctions against Plaintiffs’ counsel, Steven Tamer.

Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.300 states that if a party to whom a demand for inspection “fails to serve a timely response to it,” the party waives any and all objections and the propounding party may move for an order compelling responses to the interrogatory or demand. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300(a)-(b).) This section also states that “the court shall impose a monetary sanction . . . against any party, person or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion . . . unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300(c).)

Defendant electronically served the written discovery on Plaintiffs on December 15, 2025. (Declarations of Khoa D. Nguyen, ¶ 3.) As of the January 20, 2026 filing of the motions, Plaintiffs had not served any responses. (Id., ¶ 5.)

In light of the above, Defendant’s unopposed Motions are GRANTED. Plaintiffs are ORDERED to serve verified responses, without objections, within 15 days.

The Court finds no substantial justification for Plaintiffs’ failure to serve responses. Thus, the Court GRANTS Defendant monetary sanctions against Plaintiffs’ counsel, Steven Tamer, in the reduced amount of $800 (2 hrs at $400/hr), to be paid within 30 days to Defendant’s counsel.

Defendant to give notice.