PADILLA vs SHERRILL, et al.

23CV003404: PADILLA vs SHERRILL, et al. 04/27/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Comply With Court's Order for Production of Documents in Department 8D

Tentative Ruling

NOTICE:

Consistent with Local Rule 1.06(B), any party requesting oral argument on any matter on this calendar must comply with the following procedure:

To request limited oral argument, on any matter on this calendar, you must call the Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-2615 by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the hearing and advise opposing counsel. At the time of requesting oral argument, the requesting party shall leave a voice mail message: a) identifying themselves as the party requesting oral argument; b) indicating the specific matter/motion for which they are requesting oral argument; and c) confirming that it has notified the opposing party of its intention to appear and that opposing party may appear via Zoom using the Zoom link and Meeting ID indicated below. If no request for oral argument is made, the tentative ruling becomes the final order of the Court.

Unless ordered to appear in person by the Court, parties may appear remotely either telephonically or by video conference via the Zoom video/audio conference platform with notice to the Court and all other parties in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure §367.75. Although remote participation is not required, the Court will presume all parties are appearing remotely for non-evidentiary civil hearings.

The Department 8D Zoom Link is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16113421868 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 1342 1868. To appear on Zoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID referenced above. NO COURTCALL APPEARANCES WILL BE ACCEPTED.

Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf. 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.

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. 04/27/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Comply With Court's Order for Production of Documents 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.

TENTATIVE RULING:

***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 25 WILL BE HEARD IN DEPARTMENT 8D 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 OR GORDON D. SCHABER COURTHOUSE. ALL HEARINGS WILL TAKE PLACE AT THIS NEW LOCATION.****

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 for production of documents and things, set five, is ruled upon as follows.

Plaintiff filed its opposition on April 16, 2026, two days after the statutory deadline. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 1005, subd. (b).) The Court exercises its discretion to consider the late-filed opposition because it provides material factual information that is not reasonably subject to dispute and because Defendant filed a substantive reply. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1300(d).)

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.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV003404: PADILLA vs SHERRILL, et al. 04/27/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Comply With Court's Order for Production of Documents in Department 8D

Pertinent to this motion, on December 15, 2025, the Court granted in part Defendant’s motion to compel further discovery responses to production of documents and things, set five. In partially granting the motion, the court ordered:

Plaintiff’s responses to [Requests Nos. 60, 61, 62, 64, 68, 73, and 77] imply that Plaintiff cannot comply because they do not exist and never have existed. For instance, Plaintiff states in Responses No. 73: “No invoices or receipts exist tying damages directly to third-party contracts.” However, [Code of Civil Procedure] section 2031.230 demands explicit and more detailed information than what Plaintiff provided when a party cannot comply with a demand.

Plaintiff shall serve verified amended responses to Requests Nos. 60, 61, 62, 64, 68, 73, and 77 in accord with this order by no later than January 12, 2026.

Defendant filed the instant motion to compel on February 25, 2026, contending that “Plaintiff willfully failed to comply with the Court’s December 15, 2025 Minute Order despite Defendant’s good-faith meet-and-confer efforts and extensions.” (Def’s Motion (“Mot.”), at p. 2:11–12.) Defendant seeks an order compelling compliance with the December 15 order and monetary sanctions in the amount of $426 or, in the alternative, issue sanctions. (Id. at p. 2:2–10.)

In opposition, Plaintiff contends that the motion is moot because supplemental responses were served on April 10, 2026. (Opp., at pp. 1:22–2:2.) Plaintiff provides proof of service of “Supplemental Responses to Request for Production, Set Five.” (Id. at p. 3.)

In reply, Defendant asks the Court to disregard Plaintiff’s late filing and contends that the responses served on April 10 are inadequate.

Analysis

Defendant brings this motion pursuant to the general discovery sanctions statutes, Code of Civil Procedure sections 2023.010, 2023.030, and 2023.050. (Mot. at p. 2:2– 10.) The Court finds however that the applicable statue is Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310, subdivision (i), which relates particularly to requests for production:

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV003404: PADILLA vs SHERRILL, et al. 04/27/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Comply With Court's Order for Production of Documents in Department 8D

[I]f a party fails to obey an order compelling further response, the court may make those orders that are just, including the imposition of an issue sanction, an evidence sanction, or a terminating sanction. In lieu of, or in addition to, that sanction, the court may impose a monetary sanction.

Defendant’s request for an order compelling compliance with the Court’s December 15, 2025 Minute Order is DENIED. Even though tardy, Plaintiff complied with the substance of the Court’s order by serving supplemental responses. An order compelling response would be pointless.

Defendant states that Plaintiff’s supplemental responses are inadequate because they are unverified. (Reply, at p. 3:22–24.) The supplemental responses are not before the Court, and Defendant presents no evidence regarding the unverified status of the responses. To the extent a dispute still exists after this ruling regarding deficiencies in the supplemental responses, Defendant may file a motion pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310, subdivision (i), for appropriate relief. The Court strongly encourages the parties to meet and confer to attempt to resolve these issues.

The Court finds that Plaintiff’s late filing of responses is a violation of the Court’s order and sanctionable conduct. The Court ordered further responses by January 12, 2026. Defendant granted a courtesy extension of the deadline to February 5, 2026. (Mot., at p. 7, ¶ 5.) Plaintiff did not serve responses until April 10, 2026—over a month after this motion was filed—and Plaintiff provides no explanation for the delay. (See generally, Opp.)

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.

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.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV003404: PADILLA vs SHERRILL, et al. 04/27/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Comply With Court's Order for Production of Documents in Department 8D

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.)

Plaintiff declares the following expenses:

a). Court filing fee for this motion (10/9, 2/26): $120 b). Copying and printing costs (e.g., 364 pages at $0.28/page): $102.00 c). Postage and mailing costs; (Serve: Mail= $22) & (Replies: FedEx = $114.00 d). Legal research/printing materials (e.g., 28 pages at $0.28/page): $8; e). Court-related travel: Mileage (file Motions 10/9, 2/26; (56-miles RT@ $.70=$38), (file Replies 12/4, 4/20: (56-miles RT@ $.70=$38) and Parking ($3 x 2=$6=$82 Total: $426.00.

(Mot., at p. 8, ¶ 11.)

It appears that Plaintiff 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 9 and February 26. 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.

Accordingly, the Court orders a monetary sanction in the amount of $213.

Meet and Confer Process Going Forward

At the hearing on December 15, 2025, the parties discussed how to meet-and-confer on any future discovery disputes. The Court’s December 15, 2025 Minute Order states “the Parties agreed and the Court orders that all meet and confer written correspondence from the date of this Order shall be transmitted via mail, not electronic mail.”

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

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV003404: PADILLA vs SHERRILL, et al. 04/27/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Comply With Court's Order for Production of Documents in Department 8D

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.

Disposition

Defendant’s motion to compel compliance with the Court’s December 15, 2025 order is DENIED.

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 $213. 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.)