CHANNEL PARTNERS CAPITAL, LLC v. LOWBRAU BIER GARTEN, LLC, 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.

24CV018126: CHANNEL PARTNERS CAPITAL, LLC, A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, D/B/A CHANNEL PARTNERS EQUIPMENT FINANCE vs LOWBRAU BIER GARTEN, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, et al. 02/26/2026 Hearing on Motion to Strike Answer Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Sections 2020 and 2023 in Department 53

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 forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

TENTATIVE RULING: Plaintiff Channel Partners Capital’s unopposed motion to strike Defendant Michael Hagis’s answer ruled upon as follows.

On September 3, 2025, the Court granted Plaintiff’s unopposed motions to compel Defendant’s further responses to requests for admission and requests for production (sets one). Defendant was ordered to serve amended responses no later than October 3, 2025. No sanctions were imposed in connection with the motion to compel responses.

According to Plaintiff, Defendant has not served the Court ordered amended responses. Plaintiff now moves for an order striking Defendant’s answer as a terminating sanction.

For misuse of the discovery process, including as is the case here, disobeying a court order to provide discovery, the Court may impose a terminating sanction by one of the following: an order striking out the pleadings or parts of the pleadings of any party engaging in the misuse of the discovery process or an order dismissing the action, or any part of the action, of that party. (See, e.g. CCP §§ 2023.010(d) and (g), 2023.030(d)(1) and (3).) The Court has broad discretion in selecting the appropriate sanctions under the factual circumstances before it. (Cedars-Sinai Medical Center v. Superior Court (1998) 18 Cal.4th 1, 12.)

The Court finds that the drastic remedy of terminating sanctions is not warranted at this time. “The sanctions the court may impose are such as 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) The discovery sanction cannot put the propounding party in a better position than they would

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV018126: CHANNEL PARTNERS CAPITAL, LLC, A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, D/B/A CHANNEL PARTNERS EQUIPMENT FINANCE vs LOWBRAU BIER GARTEN, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, et al. 02/26/2026 Hearing on Motion to Strike Answer Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Sections 2020 and 2023 in Department 53

have been in if they had received the discovery. (Puritan Insurance Co. v Superior Court (1985) 171 Cal. App.3d 877, 884.)

The motion is premised on Defendant’s failure to serve amended responses to Plaintiff’s requests for admission and requests for production (sets one) as ordered by the Court on September 3, 2025. The Court finds that the failure to comply with the discovery orders in this case does not yet justify the drastic remedy of terminating sanctions. Other than the subject orders there are no earlier discovery orders with which Defendant has failed to comply. No sanctions have been previously imposed for the failure to provide the responses. Imposing the terminating sanction requested here would be punitive in light of the above circumstances and would be inconsistent with the incremental approach to discovery sanctions.

Plaintiff did not request a lesser sanction.

The Court will again order Defendant Michael Hagis to serve amended responses to Plaintiff’s requests for admission and requests for production (sets one). The responses shall be served no later than March 26, 2026. Defendant’s failure to comply with this order may lead to an inference that Defendant has abandoned the action and may result in the imposition of sanctions.

The notice of motion does not provide notice of the Court’s tentative ruling system as required by Local Rule 1.06(D). Plaintiff’s counsel is ordered to notify Defendant immediately of the tentative ruling system and to be available at the hearing in person, via Zoom or by telephone, in the event Defendant appears without following the procedures set forth in Local Rule 1.06(B).

The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1312 or further notice is required.