Long v. Glyder LLC

Counsel for Defendant Regents of the University of California is to give notice of this ruling.

9. Corzine v. Riemann 20-1133569

(Moot) 10. Long v. Glyder LLC 22-1275657 Before the Court is the Motion for Monetary and Terminating Sanctions, filed on 10/21/25 by Plaintiff Chen “Peter” Cheng Long (“Plaintiff”). The Motion is DENIED.

Plaintiff concedes on reply that the portion of the motion seeking terminating sanctions is now moot. However, Plaintiff continues to assert that substantial monetary sanctions should be imposed on Defendant Stuart Solkow (“Solkow”) pursuant to C.C.P. §§ 128.5, 2023.010, and 2023.030.

Plaintiff argues that sanctions are warranted under C.C.P. § 128.5 because Defendants engaged in misconduct by asserting meritless defenses. However, sanctions under §128.5 are not warranted because a defendant chose to go to trial, based on what were determined to be meritless defenses. (Triplett v. Farmers Ins. Exchange (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1415, 1422.) Plaintiff has not shown that sanctions under §128.5 can and should be imposed here.

Plaintiff also argues that sanctions are warranted under C.C.P. §§ 2023.010 and 2023.030, for misuse of the discovery process, citing City of Los Angeles v. PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP (2024) 17 Cal.5th 46, 58-59 and Kwan Software Engineering, Inc. v. Hennings (2020) 58 Cal.App.5th 57, 77. But in both of those cases, an egregious pattern of discovery abuse was perpetrated by the plaintiff, which permeated the entire action. Here, the evidence presented suggests that on specific issues, Solkow was evasive or not fully forthcoming. But Plaintiff has not clearly shown that Solkow engaged in a pattern of egregious discovery abuse that was sufficiently substantial to warrant discovery sanctions here.

The Motion is therefore DENIED. Plaintiff’s Request for Judicial Notice is GRANTED under Ev. Code §452(d), as to the existence of the records.

Defendants’ Evidentiary Objections, filed as ROAs 1351 and 1352, are OVERRULED.