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

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.

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. 06/04/2026 Hearing on Motion for Terminating Sanctions Against Defendant Lowbrau Bier Garten, LLC for Willful Violation of Discovery Order in Department 16D

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. *** NOTICE: EFFECTIVE APRIL 13, 2026, THIS DEPARTMENT HAS MOVED TO THE TANI G.

CANTIL-SAKAUYE COURTHOUSE LOCATED AT 500 G. ST. SACRAMENTO, CA. ALL MOTIONS NOTICED FOR DEPARTMENT 53 WILL BE HEARD IN DEPARTMENT 16D 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 THIS NEW LOCATION. PARTIES MAY CONTINUE TO APPEAR REMOTELY IN DEPARTMENT 16D UNLESS SPECIFICALLY ORDERED OTHERWISE. ***

TENTATIVE RULING: Plaintiff Channel Partners Capital, LLC’s unopposed motion for terminating sanctions is denied.

On September 3, 2025, the Court granted Plaintiff’s unopposed motions to compel Defendant Lowbrau Bier Garten, LLC’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 still 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 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. 06/04/2026 Hearing on Motion for Terminating Sanctions Against Defendant Lowbrau Bier Garten, LLC for Willful Violation of Discovery Order in Department 16D

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 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.

However, given Defendant’s delay in complying with the Court’s discovery orders the Court grants Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions. The Court finds that a modest amount of monetary sanctions is appropriate. Plaintiff is awarded monetary sanctions from Defendant Lowbrau Bier Garten, LLC’s in the amount of $1,260 ($400/hr x 3 hrs + $60 filing fee). The monetary sanction is to be paid on or before July 3, 2026. If the sanction is not paid by that date, Plaintiff may prepare for the Court’s signature a formal order granting the sanctions, which may itself be enforced in the same manner and with the same force and effect as a money judgment. (Newland, supra, 40 Cal.App.4th at 615 [“monetary sanction orders are enforceable through the execution of judgment laws”].)

The Court will again order Defendant Lowbrau Bier Garten, LLC to serve further responses to Plaintiff’s requests for admission and requests for production (sets one). The responses shall be served no later than June 18, 2026. Defendant’s failure to comply with this order may lead to an inference that Defendant has abandoned

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. 06/04/2026 Hearing on Motion for Terminating Sanctions Against Defendant Lowbrau Bier Garten, LLC for Willful Violation of Discovery Order in Department 16D

the action and may result in the further imposition of sanctions, including potentially more severe 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.