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. 05/11/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Production of Original Documents, Set Seven 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. 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. ALL HEARINGS WILL TAKE PLACE AT THIS NEW LOCATION****

TENTATIVE RULING:

The motion of Defendant/Cross-Complainant in pro per Joseph Sherill (“Defendant”) for an order to “compel production, in-person inspection, copying, testing of original signed declarations, verifications, proof of service documents signed under penalty of perjury corresponding to the copies provided to Defendant during discovery process” 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/Cross-Defendant Joseph Padilla (“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.

On November 18, 2025, Defendant served his “Demand for Production, Inspection, Copying, Testing or Sampling of Documents, Set Seven” on Plaintiff. (Sherrill Decl., ¶ 2, Exhibit A.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV003404: PADILLA vs SHERRILL, et al. 05/11/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Production of Original Documents, Set Seven in Department 8D

Defendant explains that these discovery requests sought “production and inspection of original signed documents (specifically, originals bearing wet-ink or physically signed signatures under penalty of perjury for electronically filed verifications, declarations, and proofs of service in this action).” (Id., at ¶ 2.) On December 23, 2025, Plaintiff served responses. (Id., at ¶ 3, Exhibit B.) Defendant contends that these responses comprised “of wrongfully applicable objections with non-compliant explanations, factual assertions, and/or justifications alongside the unmerited objections further admitting no original signed documents exist.” (Id., at ¶ 3.)

Defendant and counsel for Plaintiff thereafter met and conferred, by letter, between December 29, 2025 and January 9, 2026 regarding Plaintiff’s responses. (Id., ¶¶ 3-4, Exhibits C-D.)

Defendant now moves for “an order to compel production, in-person inspection, copying, testing of original signed declarations, verifications, proof of service documents signed under penalty of perjury corresponding to the copies provided to Defendant during discovery process.” (Notice of Motion at 2:3-5.)

Plaintiff opposes. Trial is currently set for June 16, 2026.

Discussion

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.240, a response to a request for production of documents must at least “contain a statement of compliance, or a representation of inability to comply with respect to the remainder of that item or category.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.240(a).) “If the responding party objects to the demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sample of an item or category of item, then the response must “[i]dentify with particularity any document, tangible thing, land, or electronically stored information falling within any category of item in the demand to which an objection is being made” or ‘[s]et forth clearly the extent of, and the specific ground for, the objection. [and] [i]f an objection is based on a claim of privilege, the particular privilege invoked shall be stated.” (Code Civ.

Proc. § 2031.240(b)(1), (2).) In addition, “[a]ny documents or category of documents produced in response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling shall be identified with the specific request number to which the documents respond.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.280.) If a demanding party deems the responses received to be incomplete, inadequate, or evasive, or if the objections to the request are without merit, the demanding party may move to compel responses. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.310(a)(1)-(3).)

Compelling production of actual documents is governed by Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.320 and is appropriate only where “a party filing a response to a demand for inspection thereafter fails to permit the inspection in accordance with that party’s statement of compliance.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.320(a).) In other words, the statute is appropriate only where the responding party and provided response and the propounding party does not dispute

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV003404: PADILLA vs SHERRILL, et al. 05/11/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Production of Original Documents, Set Seven in Department 8D

any responses or objections raised, but the documents in question have not been provided. Compliance with section 2031.320 requires a separate motion that comes after the quality and sufficiency of the responses have been mutually settled.

As discussed above, this motion concerns Defendant’s demand for production, set seven. This demand includes Requests Nos. 87-91. In response to each of these requests, Plaintiff objected, and then stated either “no documents will be produced” or “no additional documents will be produced.” (Sherrill Decl., Exhibit B.)

Defendant’s motion only seeks an order compelling the production of the documents requested in the at issue demand. However, such a request is premature as a motion to compel production is only proper where a party has agreed to produce documents but has failed to do so in compliance with its statement. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.320(a).) Here, Plaintiff has made no indication that he agrees to produce any documents. Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to compel the production of documents is DENIED without prejudice as premature.

The Court further notes that Defendant also asks the Court to “impose evidentiary/procedural sanctions invalidating or striking the requested documents.” (Moving MPA at 7:21-23.) To the extent that Defendant seeks an order an order for evidentiary and/or issue sanctions, such a request is also DENIED.

For misuse of the discovery process, the Court may impose issue, evidence, terminating, or monetary sanctions. (See, e.g. Code of Civil Procedure §§ 2023.010(d), (g), 2023.030(a)-(d).)

California Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030 provides that the court, after notice to the affected party, may impose sanctions against anyone engaging in conduct that is a misuse of the discovery process. The Court has broad discretion in the selection of the appropriate sanction to be applied under the factual circumstances. (Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc. 174 Cal.App.4th 967, 991-992.) The Court may impose sanctions that 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.) Sanctions are generally imposed in an incremental approach, with terminating sanctions being a last resort. (Lopez v. Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York, Inc. (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 566, 604.)

Discovery sanctions 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. Here, as discussed above, Defendant’s motion is premature since Plaintiff has not failed to comply with any

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV003404: PADILLA vs SHERRILL, et al. 05/11/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Production of Original Documents, Set Seven in Department 8D

statement to produce documents accordingly, evidentiary and/or issue sanctions are not warranted under the circumstances. Defendant’s request for such sanctions is thus denied.

Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions is also DENIED as the underlying motion is denied.

Disposition

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s motion is DENIED in its entirety.

The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312 or further notice is required.