Angela Ramirez vs. Pacific Gas & Electric Company

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.

34-2019-00255681-CU-OE-GDS: Angela Ramirez vs. Pacific Gas & Electric Company 07/14/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories (Set Three) in Department 16D

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 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 53 WILL BE HEARD IN DEPARTMENT 16D OF THE NEW COURTHOUSE. PARTIES MAY CONTINUE TO APPEAR REMOTELY IN DEPARTMENT 16D UNLESS SPECIFICALLY ORDERED OTHERWISE.*****

TENTATIVE RULING:

Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s (“Defendant”) motion to compel Plaintiff Angela Ramirez’s (“Plaintiff”) responses to Defendant’s Special Interrogatories, Set Three, and for terminating, issue, or evidence sanctions is ruled on as follows.

On April 13, 2026, Defendant served its Special Interrogatories, Set Three, on Plaintiff. (Declaration of Elizabeth Stonhaus, ¶ 3, Ex. B, C.) Plaintiff did not provide responses or request an extension prior to the deadline to respond which expired on May 15, 2026. (Id., ¶ 5.)

Plaintiff did not file an opposition to this 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.)

No later than July 28, 2026, Plaintiff shall serve verified responses, without objections, to Defendant’s Special Interrogatories, Set Three.

As part of this motion which seeks for the first time to compel responses to Defendant’s Special Interrogatories, Set Three, Defendant simultaneously requests terminating, issue, evidentiary, and/or monetary sanctions. Defendant has not filed or noticed for this calendar a separate motion for imposition of sanctions based upon Plaintiff’s non-compliance with prior Court orders. While

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2019-00255681-CU-OE-GDS: Angela Ramirez vs. Pacific Gas & Electric Company 07/14/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories (Set Three) in Department 16D

Defendant expressly seeks monetary sanctions “to offset Defendant’s fees and costs incurred in preparing this Motion” (see Notice at 2:12-15 [emphasis added]), Defendant’s notice of motion does not state that terminating, evidentiary or issue sanctions are separately sought for violation of prior court orders apart from the discovery at issue in this motion (see Notice of Motion). As evident from Defendant’s supporting moving papers (i.e., apart from its notice of motion), Defendant’s request for terminating, evidentiary or issue sanctions primarily relies upon prior court orders.

According to Defendant, Plaintiff has a history of discovery abuse in this action such that severe sanctions are warranted. To that end, on October 10, 2023, the Court granted Defendant’s five unopposed motion to compel Plaintiff’s further responses to five separate sets of written discovery and sanctioned Plaintiff’s counsel a total of $4,500 ($900 for each motion), for failing to meet and confer pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.020. On February 8, 2024, the Court granted Defendant’s motion for monetary sanctions in the amount of $2,375 and again ordered Plaintiff to comply with the October 10, 2023, orders.

On June 27, 2024, the Court granted Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions in the amount of $2,850 and again ordered Plaintiff to comply with the October 10, 2023, orders. The Court declined to impose terminating sanctions because at that point it had only imposed monetary sanctions upon Plaintiff for her failures to comply with the October 10, 2023 orders and that there had not been a sufficient “history of abuse, and the evidence shows that less severe sanctions would not produce compliance with the discovery rules” such terminating sanctions in the form of dismissing Plaintiff’s action is justified. (Mileikowsky v.

Tenet Healthsystem (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 262, 280.) Defendant indicates that Plaintiff has still failed to comply with the October 10, 2023 orders and had not paid the sanctions order on February 8, 2024 or June 27, 2024.

For misuse of the discovery process, the Court may impose issue sanctions ordering that designated facts “shall be taken as established in the action in accordance with the claim of the party adversely affected by the misuse of the discovery process” or “prohibiting any party engaging in the misuse of the discovery process from supporting or opposing designated claims or defenses.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030, subd. (b).) The Court may also impose evidentiary sanctions by “an order prohibiting any party engaging in the misuse of the discovery process from introducing designated matters into evidence.” (Id., subd. (c).)

Finally, the Court may impose a terminating sanction by one of the following: an order striking out the pleadings or parts of the pleadings of any party engaging in the misuse of the discovery process or an order dismissing the action, or any part of the action, of that party. (Id. subds. (d)(1) and (3).) The Court has broad discretion in selecting the appropriate sanctions under the factual circumstances before it. (Cedars-Sinai Medical Center v. Superior Court (1998) 18 Cal.4th 1, 12.) “The sanctions the court may impose are such as 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

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2019-00255681-CU-OE-GDS: Angela Ramirez vs. Pacific Gas & Electric Company 07/14/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories (Set Three) in Department 16D

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.) The discovery sanction “should not operate in such a fashion as to put the prevailing party in a better position than he would have had if he had obtained the discovery sought and it had been completely favorable to his cause.” (Id.)

The Court declines to impose terminating sanctions in connection with the instant motion which seeks to compel Plaintiff’s initial responses to Defendant’s Special Interrogatories, Set Three. Again, Defendant’s notice of motion indicates that the primary request on the instant motion is that Plaintiff be ordered to respond to the Special Interrogatories, Set Three. As set forth above, that request is granted. Based upon Defendant’s presentation of this motion, the Court cannot properly order Plaintiff to respond to one set of discovery, while simultaneously granting a request for terminating sanctions based on non-compliance with orders related to different discovery not before the Court by way of a properly noticed motion for sanctions.

As was explained in the Court’s June 11, 2026 ruling on Defendant’s motion to compel responses to its Special Interrogatories, Set Two, Defendant is free to seek terminating sanctions in a separate motion in the event that Plaintiff continues to fail to comply with the Court’s orders. The same holds true with Defendant’s request for evidence and issue sanctions. Defendant’s notice of motion did not indicate that sanctions are sought for violation of prior court orders.

Lastly, the request for monetary sanctions as to the present motion to compel responses is also denied as the motion was unopposed. Although California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1348 purports to authorize sanctions if the motion is unopposed, the Court declines to do so, as the specific statutes governing this discovery authorize sanctions only if the motion was unsuccessfully made or opposed. Any order imposing sanctions under the California Rules of Court must conform to the conditions of one or more of the statutes authorizing sanctions. (Trans-Action Commercial Investors, Ltd. v. Firmaterr, Inc. (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 352, 355.)

Notably, while Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.010 sets forth an example of a misuse of the discovery process, section 2023.010 does not authorize sanctions on its own. Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030 sets forth available sanctions for misuse of discovery. Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030, subdivision (a) states that the Court “may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct.” The Court simply notes that Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030, subdivision (a) states that the Court “may” impose sanctions for a misuse of the discovery process “to the extent authorized by the chapter governing any particular discovery

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2019-00255681-CU-OE-GDS: Angela Ramirez vs. Pacific Gas & Electric Company 07/14/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories (Set Three) in Department 16D

method or any other provision of this title”, but that the more specific statute governing the instant motion, Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290 only permits sanctions if the motion was made or opposed without substantial justification. To the extent that Defendant seeks monetary sanctions based on non-compliance with previous Court orders, Defendant should seek such relief in a motion that is separate from a motion seeking to compel responses to a different set of discovery.

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.)