PADILLA vs SHERRILL, 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.

Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver

23CV003404: PADILLA vs SHERRILL, et al. 05/04/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel to Comply with Court's Order to Special Interrogatories, Set Four in Department 8D

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. MOTIONS NOTICED FOR DEPARTMENT 25 WILL BE HEARD IN DEPARTMENT 8D OF THE NEW COURTHOUSE. ALL HEARINGS WILL TAKE PLACE AT THIS NEW LOCATION*****

TENTATIVE RULING:

The motion of Defendant/Cross-Complainant in pro per Joseph Sherrill (“Defendant”) to compel Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Joseph Padilla (“Plaintiff”) to comply with the Court’s order to special interrogatories, set four, and for monetary sanctions is ruled upon as follows.

Background

Defendant owns a property at 3100 Elkhorn Boulevard, North Highlands (the “Premises”), including a shop building, parking for motor vehicles, and access to Elkhorn Boulevard. Plaintiff alleges that, in or about September 2019, he entered into a commercial lease with purchase agreement for the Premises. The lease and purchase agreement included certain mechanical and fabrication equipment situated within the Premises. On June 20, 2023, Plaintiff filed his complaint against Defendant alleging breach of lease, negligence, intentional interference with contractual relations, harassment, and defamation.

On September 25, 2023, Defendant filed a cross-complaint against Plaintiff for breach of contract, specific performance, injunction, and declaratory relief.

A trial date is presently set in this matter for June 16, 2026.

Pertinent to this motion, on December 10, 2025, the Court granted in part Defendant’s motion to compel Plaintiff’s further responses to special interrogatories, set four. In

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV003404: PADILLA vs SHERRILL, et al. 05/04/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel to Comply with Court's Order to Special Interrogatories, Set Four in Department 8D

partially granting the motion, the Court ordered:

Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s motion to compel is GRANTED as to special interrogatories nos. 9, 10, 12, 17, 19, and 21; and DENIED as to special interrogatories nos. 11, 13-16, 18, 20, and 22-28. Plaintiff shall serve verified amended responses, without objections, by no later than January 7, 2026.

(See Minute Order, dated 12/10/2025.)

Defendant moves for an order compelling Plaintiff to serve verified, code-compliant further responses, without objection, to special interrogatories, set four as compelled by the Court’s December 10, 2025 Minute Order. Defendant also seeks monetary sanctions in the amount of $388.00 for costs incurred in connection with bringing the instant motion. In the alternative, Defendant requests issue sanctions.

Plaintiff’s opposition asserts he has now served verified amended responses without objection as required by the Court’s December 10, 2025 Minute Order. Plaintiff contends that the delay in service was unintentional and that sanctions are not warranted as the responses have now been served. The Court notes that Plaintiff failed to file a declaration or a copy of the responses themselves in support of his assertion that responses have been served.

Analysis

Responses

In this case, as Plaintiff has failed to submit a declaration or copy of the responses, and as Defendant has not filed a reply acknowledging receipt of responses, the Court has no evidence before it to find that verified responses have actually been served. Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED.

Plaintiff is again ordered to serve verified responses, without objections, to Defendant’s special interrogatories, set four, nos. 9, 10, 12, 17, 19, and 21 no later than May 14, 2026. To the extent Plaintiff has already served such verified responses, he need not re-serve the same.

The Court expresses no opinion about the sufficiency of any responses served after Defendant’s motion was filed. The purported supplemental responses are not before the

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV003404: PADILLA vs SHERRILL, et al. 05/04/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel to Comply with Court's Order to Special Interrogatories, Set Four in Department 8D

Court. To the extent a dispute still exists after this ruling regarding deficiencies in the supplemental responses, Defendant may file a noticed motion for appropriate relief, after requisite meet and confer efforts.

The Court advises the parties of a change in California law effective January 1, 2026. After January 1, parties must meet and confer on discovery disputes in person, by telephone, or by videoconference. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2016.040, subd. (a); 2023.010, subd. (i); as amended by Stats. 2025, Ch. 200.) Conferral by exchange of postal mail or electronic mail alone is no longer adequate. Going forward, Plaintiff’s attorney and Defendant in pro per must attempt to meet and confer in person or by telephone or videoconference in addition to any written correspondence the Parties wish to exchange.

Failure to meaningfully seek to meet and confer in one of these ways will result in motions being dropped or continued.

Sanctions

Further, even if Plaintiff served responses, Plaintiff’s late filing of responses is a violation of the Court’s order and sanctionable conduct. The Court ordered further responses by January 7, 2026. Plaintiff did not serve responses until after this motion was filed without a satisfactory explanation for the delay.

For misuse of the discovery process, including disobeying a court order to provide discovery, the Court may impose issue, evidence, terminating, or monetary sanctions. (See Code of Civil Procedure §§ 2023.010, subds. (d) and (g), 2023.030, subds. (a)- (d).) A court has broad discretion in the selection of the appropriate sanction for the factual circumstances. (Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 967, 991–992.) 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.” (Id. at p. 992.) Sanctions are generally imposed in an incremental approach starting with monetary sanctions and using terminating sanctions only as a last resort. (Lopez v. Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of N.Y., Inc. (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 566, 604.)

The Court finds that monetary sanctions are appropriate for the unexplained failure to comply with the Court’s deadline to respond. The issue sanctions Defendant seeks in the alternative, which may amount to terminating sanctions by precluding claims or defenses, are not appropriate under the circumstances before the Court at this time.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV003404: PADILLA vs SHERRILL, et al. 05/04/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel to Comply with Court's Order to Special Interrogatories, Set Four in Department 8D

Monetary sanctions in discovery are for the purpose of making an injured party whole and are limited to “reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of” misuse of discovery process. (Cornerstone Realty Advisors, LLC v. Summit Healthcare REIT, Inc. (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 771, 790) An unrepresented litigant cannot recover attorney’s fees for their time but may recover reasonable expenses actually incurred. (Kravitz v. Super. Ct. (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1015, 1021.)

Defendant declares the following expenses:

a). Court filing fee for this motion (10/8, 2/19): $120 b). Copying and printing costs (e.g., 444 pages at $0.28/page): $124.00 c). Postage and mailing costs; (Serve: Mail= $22) & (Replies: FedEx = $136.00 d). Legal research/printing materials (e.g., 43 pages at $0.28/page): $12; e). Court-related travel: Mileage (file Motions 10/8, 2/19; (56-miles RT@ $.70=$38), (file Replies 12/3, 2/20: (56-miles RT@ $.70=$38) and Parking ($3 x 2=$6=$82

(Def.’s Decl, ¶ 12.) The Court notes that the total in the declaration does not appear to be calculated properly. Based on Defendant’s asserted costs, the total is $572.

It appears that Defendant has declared expenses related to two motions, rather than expenses only as actually incurred for this motion. For instance, the filing fee and other entries appear to reference two dates, October 8 and February 19. The Court will impose sanctions only for expenses directly related to the filing of this motion, and in that respect, the Court will halve the expenses asserted for filing fees, copying/printing, and postage. Further, it appears that Defendant has asserted expenses relating to a reply that is not reflected on the Court’s Register of Actions. As such, the Court subtracts costs associated with reply.

Accordingly, the Court orders a monetary sanction in the amount of $180.

Disposition

Defendant’s motion to compel compliance with the Court’s December 10, 2025 order is GRANTED. Plaintiff is again ordered to serve verified responses, without objections, to Defendant’s special interrogatories, set four, nos. 9, 10, 12, 17, 19, and 21 no later than May 14, 2026. To the extent Plaintiff has already served such verified responses,

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV003404: PADILLA vs SHERRILL, et al. 05/04/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel to Comply with Court's Order to Special Interrogatories, Set Four in Department 8D

he need not re-serve the same.

The Court orders that Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s attorney are jointly and several liable for and shall pay to Defendant a monetary sanction in the amount of $180. The monetary sanction shall be paid on or before May 29, 2026.

If the sanction is not paid by that date, Defendant may prepare for the Court’s signature a formal order granting sanctions, which may itself be enforced in the same manner and with the same force and effect as a money judgment. (Newland v. Superior Court (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 608, 615 [“[M]onetary sanction orders are enforceable through the execution of judgment laws.”].)

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1019.5; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1312.)