MOSLEY, et al. vs MCAFEE, LLC

Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver 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 be forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

Tentative Ruling:

Defendant McAfee, LLC’s motion for an order compelling Plaintiffs Aaron Mosley, Angel Hernandez, Lisa Alexander, Markieda Hollier, Ross Jones, Ryan Willoughby, Sabrina Machari, Sydney Pearl, and Tameckia Cook (collectively “Plaintiffs”) to respond to McAfee’s Revised Form Interrogatories and for Plaintiffs Markieda Hollier and Angel Hernandez to respond to McAfee’s Revised Specially Prepared Interrogatories, and for sanctions against all Plaintiffs and their counsel, is ruled upon as follows.

McAfee’s request for judicial notice is GRANTED.

McAfee summarizes the events leading up to their motion as follows:

1. McAfee served on all plaintiffs form interrogatories, special

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV016009: MOSLEY, et al. vs MCAFEE, LLC 03/09/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Answers to Form Interrogatories in Department 28

interrogatories, and demands for inspection on October 22, 2025. Williams Decl., Ex. A. Plaintiffs never objected to that discovery or responded at all. Id.

2. McAfee moved to compel responses to each, filing two motions to compel—one for the interrogatories and one for the demands for inspection. See Mots. to Compel Discovery Responses (both filed Jan. 22, 2025). No plaintiff opposed either motion.

3. The Court granted in part both of McAfee’s motions to compel discovery and ordered plaintiffs to serve written discovery responses and to produce all responsive documents. See Orders on Def.’s Mots. to Compel (May 20, 2025). The court ordered plaintiffs to respond by June 5, 2025, “without objections.” Id. at 1 (emphasis added). No plaintiff complied. As just one example of the noncompliance, plaintiffs responded with objections despite the Court’s order to respond without them. (Plaintiffs’ and Hearn’s defiance of the Court’s order is the subject of McAfee’s motions for sanctions and to compel compliance with court order (filed July 18, 2025), which was heard on February 9, 2026.)

4. Although Plaintiffs did not oppose either of McAfee’s motions to compel, the Court’s tentative ruling nevertheless denied part of McAfee’s motion on the ground that proofs of service were not attached to McAfee’s form interrogatories and the proofs of service attached to the special interrogatories to Plaintiffs Hollier and Hernandez were unsigned. See Tentative Ruling on Def.’s Mot. to Compel Responses to Form Interrogs. & Special Interrogs. (May 19, 2025).

5. After receiving that tentative, McAfee immediately filed a notice of errata, attaching the proofs of service, explaining that it was correcting “inadvertent errors” and confirming that the discovery had, in fact, been duly served months earlier, despite the deficiencies in the proofs of service. See Notice of Errata (filed, May 20, 2025). McAfee’s counsel explained that he had in fact served form interrogatories on all plaintiffs and special interrogatories on Hollier on Hernandez—all on October 22, 2024, via email to Hearn. Id. McAfee’s lawyer reiterated that fact to the Court on the record at oral argument. Plaintiffs and Hearn did not, and could not, deny they had indeed been served on October 22, 2024, and again, Plaintiffs had not opposed McAfee’s motion to compel responses

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV016009: MOSLEY, et al. vs MCAFEE, LLC 03/09/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Answers to Form Interrogatories in Department 28

to the interrogatories.

6. Still, the Court affirmed the tentative ruling and denied in part McAfee’s motion to compel responses to interrogatories, on an unopposed motion. Order on Def.’s Mot. to Compel Responses to Form Interrogs. & Special Interrogs. (May 20, 2025).

7. McAfee re-served form interrogatories on all plaintiffs and special interrogatories on Hollier and Hernandez the next day. Williams Decl. ¶ 3.

8. After McAfee re-served form interrogatories on all plaintiffs and specially prepared interrogatories on Hollier and Hernandez, plaintiffs ignored them again and did not respond by the deadline. Hearn refused to engage when McAfee inquired, precipitating this motion, which seeks garden-variety discovery that McAfee has been asking for since October 2024. Id. ¶¶ 3–6. Meanwhile, McAfee was forced to move for summary judgment without these basic answers relating to plaintiffs’ claims.

9. Separately from the motions involving written discovery, all ten plaintiffs (and Hearn) no-showed noticed depositions, after failing to object to them, failing to cooperate in scheduling them, and failing to notify McAfee’s counsel they wouldn’t appear. See Mot. to Compel Depos., Williams Decl. in Support of Deposition Motion, at ¶ 6 (filed Apr. 25, 2025). That forced McAfee to move to compel the depositions of all ten plaintiffs. Id. Again, no plaintiff opposed the motion to compel.

10. The Court granted McAfee’s motion to compel depositions (but denied sanctions), ordering all ten plaintiffs to be deposed by August 8, 2025. See Order Granting Mot. to Compel Deps., at 3 (June 10, 2025). Six plaintiffs no-showed again, defying the Court’s order. Williams Decl. ¶ 7. [1]

***

Against this backdrop of blatant discovery misuse and a continued refusal to participate in discovery, McAfee now moves (1) to compel all plaintiffs to respond to the form interrogatories; (2) to compel Plaintiffs Hollier and Hernandez to respond to the special interrogatories; (3) for

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV016009: MOSLEY, et al. vs MCAFEE, LLC 03/09/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Answers to Form Interrogatories in Department 28

monetary sanctions to reimburse McAfee for its reasonable expenses in bringing this motion for plaintiffs’ and Hearn’s discovery misuse; and (4) for terminating and evidentiary sanctions for plaintiffs’ and Hearn’s discovery misuse.

(Motion, 2:17 – 4:20.)

Plaintiffs do not oppose the motion. A party’s failure to oppose a motion is construed as a concession on the merits of the motion. (See D.I. Chadbourne, Inc. v. Superior Court (1964) 60 Cal.2d 723, 728, n.4.)

Further Responses

Sacramento County Superior Court Local Rule 2.31(E) states:

(E) Parties shall make separate reservations for each remedy before filing multiple discovery-related motions in the same case with the same hearing date. When simultaneously filing multiple discovery-related motions in the same case with the same hearing date, each motion shall be filed as a separate document and a separate filing fee paid for each. Parties may not combine motions pertaining to different types of discovery within the same document. Failure to comply with any part of this rule regarding discovery motions may, in the discretion of the Court, be grounds for the motions being dropped without consideration.

McAfee is admonished for violating Local Rule 2.31(E) by simultaneously filing multiple discovery motions (one to compel form interrogatories ands another to compel responses to special interrogatories) within the instant motion. However, the Court, in its discretion, will consider the motion.

McAfee’s motion ordering discovery responses is GRANTED.

Plaintiffs shall serve verified, written responses, without objection, to McAfee’s Revised Form Interrogatories by no later than March 23, 2026, unless the parties agree in writing to a later date.

Plaintiffs Markieda Hollier and Angel Hernandez shall serve verified, written responses, without objection, to McAfee’s Revised Specially Prepared Interrogatories by no later than March 23, 2026, unless the parties agree in writing to a later date.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV016009: MOSLEY, et al. vs MCAFEE, LLC 03/09/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Answers to Form Interrogatories in Department 28

Sanctions

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).) The Court has broad discretion in the selection of the appropriate sanction to be applied under the factual circumstances. (Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc. (2009) 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.)

Request for Monetary Sanctions

McAfee seeks monetary sanctions against Plaintiffs and their counsel, Hearn, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 2023.010, 2023.030(b) for misusing the discovery process by failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery.

McAfee argues that attorneys are subject to sanction when they “advise” the sanctionable conduct or discovery misuse. § 2023.030(a). “Because an attorney’s advice to a client is ‘peculiarly within his or her knowledge,’ the attorney has the burden of showing that he or she did not counsel discovery abuse” in order to avoid sanctions. Kwan Software, 58 Cal. App. 5th at 81. “Accordingly, when a party seeking sanctions against an attorney offers sufficient evidence of a misuse of the discovery process, the burden shifts to the attorney to demonstrate that he or she did not recommend that conduct.” Id.

Here, McAfee sets forth that the evidence here, however, proves that Plaintiffs’ Counsel Rockford Hearn facilitated the conduct, informing the court that every plaintiff that McAfee deposed testified they did not know they had missed their answering deadline.

McAfee sets forth:

Sydney Pearl may not even know he filed a lawsuit—much less that

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV016009: MOSLEY, et al. vs MCAFEE, LLC 03/09/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Answers to Form Interrogatories in Department 28

McAfee served interrogatories on him. Without warning or notice, Pearl’s mother appeared instead of him at his noticed deposition. See Williams Decl. ¶ 8, Scott Dep. Tr. 7:24. She doesn’t “remember” whether she has informed him he is a plaintiff in a lawsuit. Id. 20:1322:17. Tameckia Cook testified that “you have to ask Rocky” when asked whether she had ever seen the form interrogatories she never responded to. Williams Decl. ¶ 9, Cook Dep. Tr. 49:2050:2. She didn’t recognize “all these boxes.” (referring to the Form Interrogatories). Id. 50:23. When asked, “Do you know that you never answered these?” Cook testified, “No.” Id. 51:9-10. She similarly did not know they were served on her in May 2025. Id. 51:1114.

Plaintiff Hollier incorrectly answered “I believe so, but I don’t recall” when asked whether she had served answers to McAfee’s interrogatories. Williams Decl. ¶ 10, Hollier Dep. Tr. 16:24. Plaintiff Machari testified that she didn’t know whether McAfee had served interrogatories on her. Williams Decl. ¶ 11, Machari Dep. Tr. 33:1016. When shown the form interrogatories McAfee served on her through her counsel, she couldn’t remember whether she had ever seen them before. Id. 53:1454:8 Nor did she know that McAfee had previously moved to compel her responses to specially prepared interrogatories.

Id. 33:1721. Beth Bruns testified that she had never seen her answers to McAfee’s specially prepared interrogatories. Williams Decl. ¶ 12, Bruns Dep. Tr. 37:1218. Aaron Mosley answered “Don’t know anything about it” when shown the form interrogatories McAfee served on him through his lawyer. Williams Decl. ¶ 13, Mosley Dep. Tr. 56:1957:25.

(Motion, 9: 1-20.)

McAfee argues that this shows that Counsel Rockford Hearn ignored the interrogatories and facilitated his clients’ failures to respond.

Hearn does not oppose the sanctions requested against him or Plaintiffs, as he has failed to oppose the motion.

McAfee seeks $17,858.51 in sanctions.

The Court grants McAfee’s request for monetary sanctions, jointly and severally against Rockford Hearn and Plaintiffs, in the reduced amount of $12,559.88

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV016009: MOSLEY, et al. vs MCAFEE, LLC 03/09/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Answers to Form Interrogatories in Department 28

(consisting of $8,193.75 for fifteen hours of attorney Keith Emanual’s time at $546.25/hour, $3,655.13 for 5.7 hours of attorney Benjamin D. Williams’ time at $641.25/hour, $651 for 2.1 hours of paralegal Jennifer Borey’s time at the rate of $310/hour, and $60 for the filing fee.)

Sanctions are to be paid on or before March 23, 2026. If sanctions are not paid by that date, Defendant may prepare a formal order granting sanctions for the Court's signature, and the order may be enforced as a separate judgment. (Newland v. Superior Court (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 608, 615.)

Request for Evidentiary/Terminating Sanctions

McAfee also seeks evidentiary sanctions pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030(c) or terminating sanctions pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030(d).

The Court finds that evidentiary or terminating sanctions would be unnecessarily punitive in nature at this time, and that an incremental approach would more appropriately address the facts herein. McAfee’s requests for evidentiary sanctions and terminating sanctions are DENIED at this time.

However, the Court cautions Plaintiffs that their continued failure to comply with the Court’s orders regarding discovery “may lead to an inference that Plaintiffs have abandoned the action against Defendant and may result in the imposition of more severe sanctions, up to and including terminating sanctions.”

Disposition

McAfee’s motion to compel responses is GRANTED.

Plaintiffs shall serve verified, written responses, without objection, to McAfee’s Revised Form Interrogatories by no later than March 23, 2026, unless the parties agree in writing to a later date.

Plaintiffs Markieda Hollier and Angel Hernandez shall serve verified, written responses, without objection, to McAfee’s Revised Specially Prepared Interrogatories by no later than March 23, 2026, unless the parties agree in writing to a later date.

Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions is GRANTED jointly and severally

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV016009: MOSLEY, et al. vs MCAFEE, LLC 03/09/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Answers to Form Interrogatories in Department 28

against Plaintiffs and Rockford Hearn in the amount of $12,559.88. Sanctions to be paid by March 23, 2026.

Defendant’s request for evidentiary and terminating sanctions are DENIED.

Attorney Rockford Hearn is ordered to provide a copy of this order to each of the Plaintiffs herein by no later than March 13, 2026.

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.)

[1] The Court notes that the plaintiffs that failed to appear for their deposition after the Court’s

order included Sydney Pearl, Lisa Alexander, Angel Hernandez, Ryan Willoughby, and Ross Jones. (Williams Decl., ¶ 7.)