LAWSON v. RUPESH

LAW AND MOTION TENTATIVE RULINGS DATE: MAY 26, 2026 TIME: 8:30 A.M.

No. 24CV01442

LAWSON v. RUPESH

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS

The unopposed motion is granted in part, as discussed below.

On April 17, 2025, this Court signed an order granting plaintiff’s motion to compel responses to request for production of documents and form interrogatories, set one and granted the motion to deem admitted requests for admissions, set one. Defendant was ordered to serve verified responses to form interrogatories and request for production of documents within 20 days from the date the court signed the order and imposed $1,620.00 in sanctions against defendant. At the time, defendant was represented by Kevin Hoeke.

On October 2, 2025, the Court granted Kevin Hoeke’s motion to be relieved as counsel. (He failed to file an order on this motion until April 17, 2026.) On January 15, 2026, defendant’s new counsel, Mr. Arnold, appeared at a further case management conference and filed a notice of general appearance on April 13, 2026. Plaintiff asserts that he emailed Mr. Arnold a copy of the outstanding discovery along with the Court’s April 17, 2025 order and demanded that defendant provide responses and pay the ordered sanctions by February 16, 2026.

Defendant did not provide the responses or pay the sanctions. (Decl. of Morin at ¶¶ 17-18). On February 19, 2026, plaintiff filed this motion, asserting defendant failed to comply with the Court’s prior discovery order and asking the court to strike defendant’s answer or impose additional monetary sanctions. (Decl. of Morin at ¶ 19.) Defendant did not file an opposition.

The Court will not grant the ultimate “terminating” sanction of striking defendant’s answer, as requested at this time, as the record shows defendant has only failed to comply with one previous discovery order. Plaintiff has not demonstrated that a lesser sanction would not be effective in eliciting the requested discovery responses. “[A] more severe sanction is disfavored if a lesser sanction is available.” (City of Los Angeles v. PricewaterhouseCooper, LLP (2024) 17 Cal.4th 46, 63.) “Before imposing a ‘terminating’ sanction, courts should usually grant lesser sanctions: e.g., orders staying the action until plaintiff compiles, or orders declaring matters as admitted or established if the answers are not received by a specific date, often accompanied with costs and fess to the moving party.

It is only when a party persists in disobeying the court’s orders that the ultimate (‘doomsday’) sanctions of dismissing the action or entering default judgment, etc., are justified. [Citations.]” (Weil & Brown Civil Proc. Before Trial (TRG 2025) § 8:2235.) “The discovery statutes thus ‘evince an incremental approach to discovery sanctions, starting with monetary sanctions and ending with the ultimate sanction of termination.’ [Citation.] Although in extreme cases a court has the authority to order a terminating sanction as a first measure [citations] a terminating sanction should generally not be imposed until the court

LAW AND MOTION TENTATIVE RULINGS DATE: MAY 26, 2026 TIME: 8:30 A.M.

has attempted less severe alternatives and found them to be unsuccessful and/or the record clearly shows lesser sanctions would be ineffective.” (Lopez v. Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York, Inc. (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 566, 604.)

Defendant is ordered to comply with the Court’s prior discovery order on or before June 18, 2026. Additional monetary sanctions, also due on or before June 18, 2026, in the amount of $1,000.00 are imposed against defendant for its continued failure to comply. [“The court ‘may make those order that are just’ if a party fails to obey prior orders. [Citations.]” (Weil & Brown Civil Proc. Before Trial (TRG 2025) § 8:2200.)]