Andrea Vicars v. Marborg Industries, et al.

discoverability resolved in favor of disclosure." (Glenfed Development Corp. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1119.)

"If, after service of a deposition notice, a party to the action or an officer, director, managing agent, or employee of a party, or a person designated by an organization that is a party under Section 2025.230, without having served a valid objection under Section 2025.410, fails to appear for examination, or to proceed with it, or to produce for inspection any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice, the party giving the notice may move for an order compelling the deponent's attendance and testimony, and the production for inspection of any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2025.450, subd. (a).)

As noted above, Defendant was properly served with a deposition notice and demand for production of documents at deposition. She refused to attend her deposition. Plaintiff obtained an order directing Defendant to appear for her deposition on April 20, 2026. Despite the Court order to do so, she again refused to sit for deposition.

"If that party or party-affiliated deponent then fails to obey an order compelling attendance, testimony, and production, the Court may make those orders that are just, including the imposition of an issue sanction, an evidence sanction, or a terminating sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against that party deponent or against the party with whom the deponent is affiliated. In lieu of, or in addition to, this sanction, the Court may impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against that deponent or against the party with whom that party deponent is affiliated, and in favor of any party who, in person or by attorney, attended in the expectation that the deponent's testimony would be taken pursuant to that order." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2025.450, subd. (h).)

"A Court has broad discretion in selecting the appropriate penalty" for a party's refusal to obey a discovery order. (Lopez v. Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York, Inc. (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 566, 604.)

"[V]iolation of a discovery order is not a prerequisite to issue and evidentiary sanctions when the offending party has engaged in a pattern of willful discovery abuse that causes the unavailability of evidence. [Citation.]" (Karlsson v. Ford Motor Co. (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 1202, 1215.)

Here, Defendant has violated the discovery order, and she has engaged in a pattern of willful discovery abuse that has caused the unavailability of evidence. The right to depose an adverse party is crucial to the ability to properly prepare for trial. As noted above, trial in this matter is scheduled to begin May 27, 2026. Plaintiff has been severely prejudiced in its ability to prepare this matter for trial due to Defendant's continued refusal to sit for deposition and produce documents. Plaintiff has provided extensions and has otherwise cooperatively worked with Defendant in scheduling the deposition.

Defendant still, in no uncertain terms, has expressed her position that she will not sit for deposition. Even after the filing of the present motion, Defendant continues in her refusal and has not even filed an opposition to the motion. The Court finds Defendant's refusal willful and deliberate. It is apparent that monetary sanctions would not compel compliance. The motion for evidentiary sanctions will be granted. Defendant will be precluded from introducing evidence at trial in support of her contention that she as a life estate in the property.

Tentative Ruling: Andrea Vicars v. Marborg Industries, et al. Tentative Ruling: Andrea Vicars v. Marborg Industries, et al. Case Number

Case Type Civil Law & Motion Hearing Date / Time Wed, 04/08/2026 - 10:00 Nature of Proceedings

Motions to Compel (3); Motion for Protective Order Tentative Ruling For Plaintiff Andrea Vicars: R. Chris Kroes, McCarthy & Kroes For Defendants Marborg Industries and Homero Vences: Maryam Danishwar, Jonathan Semerjian, Clark Hill LLP RULING

(1) For the reasons set forth herein, the motion of Plaintiff for a protective order re special interrogatories and request for production of documents propounded by Defendant Marborg Industries is continued to May 13, 2026. The parties shall meet and confer in accordance with this ruling and, on or before April 29, 2026, submit a joint report, or file and serve individual status reports if necessary, setting forth, on a point-by-point basis as to each discovery request at issue, the matters described herein including which, if any, disputes have been resolved and which, if any, disputes remain.

(2) For the reasons stated herein, the motion of Plaintiff to compel Defendant Marborg Industries to provide further responses to set one form interrogatories is granted. Defendant's objections to Plaintiff's set one form interrogatory nos. 1.1, 2.11, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 3.6, 3.7, 4.1, 4.2, 12.1, 12.2, 12.3, 12.6, 12.7, 13.1, 14.1, 15.1, 16.1, 16.2, 16.7, 16.8, 17.1, 20.1, 20.2, 20.3, 20.4, 20.5, 20.8, 20.9, 20.10, and 20.11, are overruled except as to those based on privilege. On or before April 22, 2026, Defendant shall serve verified, code compliant further responses to Plaintiff's set one form interrogatory nos. 1.1, 2.11, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 3.6, 3.7, 4.1, 4.2, 12.1, 12.2, 12.3, 12.6, 12.7, 13.1, 14.1, 15.1, 16.1, 16.2, 16.7, 16.8, 17.1, 20.1, 20.2, 20.3, 20.4, 20.5, 20.8, 20.9, 20.10, and 20.11, without the objections overruled herein.

The Court awards sanctions in favor of Plaintiff Andrea Vicars, and against Defendant Marborg Industries and its counsel, Maryam Danishwar and Jonathan Semerjian, in the amount of $5,747.50, payable to Plaintiff's counsel. Payment of sanctions is due by May 8, 2026.

(3) For the reasons stated herein, the motion of Plaintiff to compel Defendant Marborg Industries to provide further responses to set one request for admissions is granted. Defendant's objections to Plaintiff's set one request for admissions nos. 1 through 12 are overruled, except as to those based on privilege. On or before April 22, 2026, Defendant shall serve verified, code compliant further responses to Plaintiff's set one request for admissions nos. 1 through 12, without the objections overruled herein. The Court awards sanctions in favor of Plaintiff Andrea Vicars, and against Defendant Marborg Industries and its counsel, Maryam Danishwar and Jonathan Semerjian, in the amount of $4,872.50, payable to Plaintiff's counsel. Payment of sanctions is due by May 8, 2026.

(4) For the reasons stated herein, the motion of Plaintiff to compel Defendant Marborg Industries to provide further responses to set one requests for production of documents is granted. Defendant's objections to Plaintiff's set one request for production of documents and other things nos. 1 through 13 are overruled, except as to those based on privilege. On or before April 22, 2026, Defendant shall serve verified, code compliant further responses to Plaintiff's set one request for production of documents and other things nos. 1 through 13, without the objections overruled herein. The Court awards sanctions in favor of Plaintiff Andrea Vicars, and against Defendant Marborg Industries and its counsel, Maryam Danishwar, in the amount of $5,310, payable to Plaintiff's counsel. Payment of sanctions is due by May 8, 2026.

Background

As alleged in the complaint of Plaintiff Andrea Vicars: On April 17, 2025, Marborg Industries (Marborg) came to 850 Clark Road in Santa Barbara, California, to pick up a full 40-yard dumpster. (Compl., P.P. MV-1, MV-2(f) & GN-1.) During the pickup, the 10,000 pound steel dumpster came off the hook, rolled down the driveway, and crashed into Plaintiff's Mercedes Sprinter van, which then was pushed back and into Plaintiff's Lexus, causing significant damage to both vehicles. (Compl., P. MV-2(f) & GN-1.) On July 24, 2025, Plaintiff filed their complaint against Defendants Marborg and Homero Vences, alleging two causes of action: (1) motor vehicle; and (2) general negligence. On November 26, 2025, Marborg filed an answer to the complaint, generally denying its allegations and asserting thirty-five affirmative defenses.

On December 23, Plaintiff filed a motion for a protective order (the protective order motion) in regard to Marborg's special interrogatories and requests for production of documents. That motion also seeks an order limiting Defendant's special interrogatories to the statutorily permitted number, and requiring Marborg to withdraw the declarations attached to the special interrogatories. The protective order motion also includes a request for an award of monetary sanctions against Marborg and its counsel of record. Marborg opposes the protective order motion, which was calendared for hearing on March 18, 2026.

On February 17, 2026, Plaintiff filed a motion (the FI Motion) for an order compelling Marborg to provide further responses to Plaintiff's set one form interrogatories (the FI), and imposing monetary sanctions against Marborg and its counsel. On February 18, Plaintiff filed a motion (the RFA Motion) for an order compelling Marborg to provide further responses to Plaintiff's set one request for admissions (the RFA), and imposing monetary sanctions against Marborg and its counsel. On February 19, Plaintiff filed a motion (the RFP Motion) for an order compelling Marborg to provide further responses to Plaintiff's set one requests for production of documents (the RFP), and imposing monetary sanctions against Marborg and its counsel. The RFA Motion was calendared for hearing on March 18, 2026. The FI Motion and the RFP Motion were each calendared for hearing on April 8, 2026.

On March 11, Defendant Vences filed an answer to the complaint, generally denying its allegations and asserting thirty-five affirmative defenses. Also on March 11, Plaintiff filed a reply in support of its RFA Motion, stating that Marborg failed to file any opposition to that motion by the deadline prescribed in California Rules of Court, rule 3.1300(b). On March 18, the Court issued an order continuing the protective order motion and the RFA Motion to April 8, to be heard with the FI Motion and the RFP Motion. On April 1, Plaintiff separately filed a reply in support of the RFP Motion and the FI Motion, stating that Marborg failed to file any oppositions to those motions. As of this writing, Court records reflect that Marborg has not filed any opposition to the RFA Motion, the FI Motion, or the RFP Motion.

Analysis

(1) The Protective Order Motion

The protective order motion is supported by a declaration of Plaintiff's counsel, R. Chris Kroes (attorney Kroes), who states that on November 26, 2025, Marborg served form interrogatories; twenty-five requests for admissions; fifty-two requests for production of documents seeking financial records, loss of earnings, medical reports, and Plaintiff's cell phone, social media, and personal injury data; and sixty-six special interrogatories seeking those same categories of information. (Kroes Dec., P. 4, exhibits B1 [special interrogatories] & B2 [requests for production of documents].) A declaration attached to the special interrogatories of Marborg states that the number of interrogatories is warranted because Plaintiff claims multiple physical and emotional injuries in these proceedings. (Kroes Dec., P. 5 & exhibit B1 at p. 13 [declaration for additional discovery].)

On December 1, attorney Kroes asserted in written correspondence with Marborg's counsel, that discovery concerning personal injuries was inappropriate for a property damage case, and that opposing counsel's affirmation justifying the additional interrogatories was false. (Kroes Dec., P. 6 & exhibit C [attorney Kroes' December 1 correspondence].) In that correspondence, attorney Kroes requested that Marborg amend the special interrogatories and request for admissions. (Ibid.)

On December 3, attorney Kroes contacted Marborg's counsel by telephone and pointed counsel to Plaintiff's Judicial Council form complaint containing the claims made by Plaintiff. (Kroes Dec., P. 7.) Marborg's counsel agreed that their declaration for additional discovery was in error, and stated that Marborg would amend the discovery to cover matters related to property damage and loss of use only, and remove the requests regarding personal injuries, hospital expenses, medical bills, financial data, and emotional distress. (Ibid.) On December 3, Marborg's counsel served amended discovery requests consisting of form interrogatories;

likely facilitate the resolution of the action. The Court will not order separate trials. Plaintiffs would be prejudiced if separate trials were ordered. The administration of justice would be prejudiced if separate trials were ordered.

Tentative Ruling: Andrea Vicars v. Marborg Industries, et al. Tentative Ruling: Andrea Vicars v. Marborg Industries, et al. Case Number

Case Type Civil Law & Motion Hearing Date / Time Wed, 05/13/2026 - 10:00 Nature of Proceedings Plaintiff's Motion for Protective Order Re Special Interrogatories and Request For Production Of Documents Propounded By Defendant Tentative Ruling For Plaintiff Andrea Vicars: R. Chris Kroes, McCarthy & Kroes For Defendants Marborg Industries and Homero Vences: Maryam Danishwar, Jonathan Semerjian, Clark Hill LLP RULING

For the reasons stated herein, the motion of Plaintiff for a protective order re special interrogatories and request for production of documents propounded by Defendant Marborg Industries is granted, in part as to Defendant's amended set one special interrogatory nos. 1, 9 through 14, 16 through 29, 49, and 50; and Defendant's amended set one requests for production of documents and other things nos. 6 (in part and in accordance with this ruling), 11 through 17, 19, 21, and 36 through 39. Except as herein granted, the motion is otherwise denied. Plaintiff shall submit, for the Court's signature, a proposed order that conforms to the ruling herein. The trial date of 11/25/26 is confirmed - again.

Background

As alleged in the complaint of Plaintiff Andrea Vicars: On April 17, 2025, Marborg Industries (Marborg) came to 850 Clark Road in Santa Barbara, California, to pick up a dumpster. (Complaint, P.P. MV-1, MV-2(f) & GN-1.) During the pickup, the 10,000 pound steel dumpster rolled down the driveway and crashed into Plaintiff's Mercedes Sprinter van, which then was pushed back and into Plaintiff's Lexus, causing significant damage to both vehicles. (Complaint, P. MV-2(f) & GN-1.) On July 24, 2025, Plaintiff filed their complaint against Defendants Marborg and Homero Vences, alleging two causes of action: (1) motor vehicle; and (2) general negligence. On November 26, 2025, Marborg filed an answer to the complaint, generally denying its allegations and asserting thirty-five affirmative defenses.

On December 23, Plaintiff filed a motion for a protective order (the protective order motion) limiting Marborg's special interrogatories to the number permitted by code; limiting Marborg's discovery requests to those which are relevant and do not violate Plaintiff's right to privacy, and precluding Marborg from propounding discovery seeking information regarding personal injuries, emotional distress, financial information, cell phone data, and social media information; limiting Marborg's request for production of documents to those for which good cause is shown; and requiring Marborg to withdraw its declarations for additional discovery.

The motion seeks an award of monetary sanctions against Marborg and its counsel of record. Marborg filed an opposition to the protective order motion, which was calendared for hearing on March 18, 2026. On February 17, 18, and 19, 2026, Plaintiff filed, respectively, a motion for an order (the FI Motion) compelling