OSC re Sanctions
Kroger-affiliated witnesses and four witnesses affiliated with the People. The People argue that Kroger was required to identify consumers who complained about the calorie discrepancy at issue in the action. (Sep. Stat., p. 34, ll. 11-17.)
Kroger argues it has provided customer comment records regarding Carbmaster Products, but that this information is not responsive to this interrogatory. (Sep. Stat., p. 35, ll. 7-9.)
The Court will deny the People's motion for issue or evidentiary sanctions as to FI No. 12.1, but require Kroger to provide a further supplemental response to FI No. 12.1 as to the customer comments it previously produced.
(9) FI No. 12.6
FI No. 12.6 asks information about any report concerning the incident. Kroger agreed to produce the history of its labeling in response to this interrogatory. Similar to FI No. 12.1, the People argue that Kroger was required to produce the required information as to consumer complaints. (Sep. Stat., p. 39, ll. 5-17.)
The Court will deny the People's motion for issue or evidentiary sanctions as to FI No. 12.6, but require Kroger to provide a further supplemental response to FI No. 12.6 as to the customer comments it previously produced.
(10) FI No. 15.1(b)
FI No. 15.1(b) asks for persons with knowledge pertaining to Kroger's denials or affirmative defenses. Kroger identified eight persons in its supplemental response. (Sep. Stat., p. 43, ll. 5-16.)
The People request an evidentiary sanction limiting the testimony that Kroger can offer at trial to the persons identified in response to this interrogatory. (Motion, p. 2, ll. 10-12.)
The Court declines to address the scope of trial witnesses in the context of a discovery motion disputing whether a discovery response is fulsome and accurate. The Court finds that this is not an appropriate use of a discovery sanction and will deny the motion as to FI No. 15.1(b).
(11) FI No. 16.1
FI No. 16.1 asks information about persons other than Kroger who contributed to the injuries at issue. Kroger indicated in its supplemental response that it does not make such a contention. The People argue this this response is inconsistent with Kroger's affirmative defense Nos. 4 and 5 pertaining to contributory fault. The People ask that the Court strike these defenses or prohibit Kroger from offering evidence of contributory fault. (Motion, p. 2, ll. 13-16.)
The Court declines to address the scope of defenses at trial in the context of a discovery motion disputing whether a discovery response is fulsome and accurate. The Court finds that this is not an appropriate use of a discovery sanction and will deny the motion as to FI No. 16.1.
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
(12) Further Supplemental Responses to SI Nos. 2, 6, 7, and 10, and FI Nos. 12.1 and 12.6
The Court will require that Kroger serve a further verified supplemental response to these interrogatories confirming that Kroger has provided the requested information to the extent possible based on the information reasonably available to Kroger after good faith efforts. The supplemental response shall be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to Kroger permits. If the interrogatory cannot be answered complete, it shall be answered to the extent possible. If Kroger does not have personal knowledge sufficient to respond fully to this interrogatory, Kroger shall so state but shall make a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information by inquiry to other natural persons or organizations, except where the information is equally available to the People.
Tentative Ruling: 1240 E. Valley Rd LLC et al vs Andy Goldman et al Tentative Ruling: 1240 E. Valley Rd LLC et al vs Andy Goldman et al Case Number
Case Type Civil Law & Motion Hearing Date / Time Wed, 05/13/2026 - 10:00 Nature of Proceedings CMC; OSC re Sanctions Tentative Ruling
For Plaintiffs: Robert A. Curtis, Aaron L. Arndt. For Defendants: Lauren E. Becker, Bart Becker. Issue OSC re Sanctions On the 8:30 CMC calendar re dismissal Both matters will be called at 8:30 am.
RULINGS
For the reasons set out below the Court finds: The Defendants and their counsel acted in bad faith and levies sanctions of $8,125 payable jointly and severally by Defendants Andy Goldman and Jan Goldman and their lawyer Bart Becker to be paid by May 29, 2026. Judgment was entered and the dismissal issue is moot. The CMC is ordered off calendar.
Analysis
On 3/6/26, this case was settled via a 664.6 settlement with the jury waiting to begin the 2nd phase of a Punitive Damage claim after the Court urged counsel to consider a settlement of the entire case including punitive damages. Counsel did so and the 664.6 settlement read into the record was: Defendant shall pay Plaintiff the amount of $1,600,000.00 within 30 days of March 6, 2026. There shall be no appeal. Plaintiff will dismiss the case with prejudice upon payment.
The Lawyers Were To "Document" That Settlement. They did not do that -- to the Court's dismay. The Court therefore drafted a Judgment; i.e. documented the settlement [as it had previously told counsel it would do if they could not].
On 4/7/26 the matter came on for hearing. The purpose of that hearing was to allow counsel to address any objections to the Judgment prepared and circulated to them by the Court. The Court recited the contents of the judgment and invited comments [argument] from counsel. Defendant's counsel, Mr. Becker, requested to be heard and presented objections and arguments, at length. Plaintiff's counsel, Mr. Curtis, presented responsive arguments. Mr. Becker provided further argument. After hearing from both lawyers, the Court deemed the matter submitted.
The Court ordered as follows: The Court affirms and stands by the judgment as prepared. The Court further indicated it is considering the imposition of bad faith sanctions against Defendants and their counsel, Mr. Becker. Plaintiff's counsel, Mr. Curtis, was ordered to file and serve an attorney's fees declaration for fees incurred from the date the settlement was reached to present, and a declaration supporting the basis for sanctions, on or before April 17, 2026. Defendants' response shall be filed and served on or before April 27, 2026. Any reply shall be filed and served on or before May 18, 2026. The Court set an Order to Show Cause re: Sanctions against Defendants and their counsel for May 13, 2026, at 10:00 a.m.
Plaintiff's opening brief filed 4/17/26; 10 pages; summarized: At the Court's invitation, Plaintiffs 1240 E. Valley Rd., LLC and Richard Wax (together, "Plaintiffs") submitted a brief seeking sanctions for the conduct of counsel for Defendants Andy Goldman and Jan Goldman (together, "Defendants") and Defendants' counsel, Bart Becker. Given the bad faith conduct of Defendants' counsel post-verdict and post-settlement (on the record under Code of Civ. Proc., Sec. 664.6), sanctions are warranted.
As this Court is aware, at around 10:55 a.m. on Friday, March 6, 2026, the jury in the above-captioned matter returned a verdict totaling $1,250,000 in favor of Plaintiffs and against Defendants on three separate counts: Nuisance, Trespass, and Negligence. In addition, the jury voted 9-3 in favor of awarding punitive damages against the Defendants.
Shortly after the verdicts were read, the Court held a sidebar in which (1) the Court indicated that we were going to start the Punitive Damages Phase immediately and (2) Mr. Curtis was given an envelope containing Defendants' CPA's opinion on Defendants' net worth. At that sidebar, the Court did two other things: (1) he asked Mr. Curtis "Would you like to make an offer?" and (2)