MCKAGUE LAW GROUP, PC vs SHIRLEY

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

24CV019993: MCKAGUE LAW GROUP, PC vs SHIRLEY 12/16/2025 Hearing on Motion to Compel Answers to Special Interrogatories, Set One Served on Nathan Cole in Department 53

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:

Defendants/cross-complainants Lori McCracken, et al.’s (collectively “McCracken”) “second/further” motion to compel defendant/cross-defendant in pro per Nathan Cole’s responses to Special Interrogatories and for monetary sanctions is ruled upon as follows.

Factual Background

This is an action for interpleader by a law firm which previously negotiated a settlement on behalf of its clients, who were ultimately unable to agree on a distribution of the settlement proceeds. Defendant in pro per Cole filed an answer to the complaint on 12/19/2024 but defendants McCracken and Shirley also filed a cross-complaint against defendant Cole for declaratory relief, common counts and accounting. No trial date has been set.

In February 2024, McCracken filed separate motions to compel Cole’s responses to Form and Special Interrogatories and to Requests for Production. Cole filed no written opposition or other objection to any of these three motions to compel and on 7/16/2025, the Court granted all three motions. More specifically, the Court ordered Cole to provide verified responses, without objections, to McCracken’s Form and Special Interrogatories and Requests for Production no later than 7/29/2025.

Moving Papers. McCracken now apparently seeks a second/further order compelling Cole’s verified responses, without objections, to Special Interrogatories because although Cole filed with the Court on 7/29/2025 and subsequently delivered to McCracken’s counsel on 8/4/2025, albeit without any proof of service, purported responses to Form Interrogatories and Requests for Production, Cole has to date failed to provide any purported responses to the Special Interrogatories whatsoever. The moving papers also include a request for terminating, evidentiary and monetary sanctions against Cole.

Opposition. Defendant in pro per Cole untimely filed on 12/8/2025 a purported opposition which may or may not actually pertain to the present motion, even though the deadline for such opposition was actually 12/3/2025. (See, Code Civ. Proc. §1005(b).)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV019993: MCKAGUE LAW GROUP, PC vs SHIRLEY 12/16/2025 Hearing on Motion to Compel Answers to Special Interrogatories, Set One Served on Nathan Cole in Department 53

In fact, assuming arguendo this opposition is directed to the present motion, Cole’s opposition was so late as to be filed just one day prior to the deadline for the moving parties to file their reply papers (Id.) and to effectively deny the moving parties a meaningful opportunity to prepare appropriate reply papers. Under such circumstances and again assuming arguendo this opposition is in fact directed to the present motion, this Court exercises its inherent discretion by disregarding in its entirety Cole’s untimely opposition to this motion but in any event, the Court adds that none of the arguments advanced in the untimely opposition filed on 12/8/2025 has any genuine bearing on the ultimate disposition of the current motion.

While Cole’s untimely opposition papers contend that (1) the underlying discovery requests were improperly served before McCracken served the cross-complaint and were improperly served on Cole by “substituted service;” (2) McCracken’s discovery requests seek documents “equally obtainable by all parties;” and (3) McCracken failed to meet and confer, such contentions are relevant only to the disposition of the earlier motions and these arguments should therefore have been advanced in a timely opposition to the earlier motions.

However, as noted above, Cole filed no written opposition or other objection to any of these earlier motions by McCracken and although Cole did appear at the hearing on these earlier motions, the Court determined that each of the earlier motions were properly granted. As such, the three aforementioned arguments by Cole were not timely advanced by him and need not be considered here, as they have no bearing on the disposition of the current motion.

Cole’s remaining assertion that the earlier 7/16/2025 order was “obtained by misrepresentation” is fundamentally based on a combination of the three contentions discussed in the preceding paragraph. As such, this Court finds that the characterization of the 7/16/2025 being a result of “misrepresentation” not only lacks both factual and legal support but more importantly, Cole has to date neither sought nor obtained relief from the 7/16/2025 order based on his claim of being the product of some “misrepresentation” to the Court by McCracken.

To be clear, Cole is as a matter of law not entitled to obtain any affirmative relief relative to the 7/16/2025 order (or anything else) by virtue the arguments advanced in his current (untimely) opposition papers but he was instead obligated in the first instance to pursue such relief via a properly-noticed and duly-served code-compliant motion. Thus, the Court need not reconsider in the context of the present motion, the earlier 7/16/2025 order on which McCracken’s present motion is premised.

Discussion

At the outset, the Court must agree with the moving papers’ assertions that although Cole filed with the Court on 7/29/2025 purported responses to Form Interrogatories and

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV019993: MCKAGUE LAW GROUP, PC vs SHIRLEY 12/16/2025 Hearing on Motion to Compel Answers to Special Interrogatories, Set One Served on Nathan Cole in Department 53

Requests for Production, no purported responses to Special Interrogatories were filed on the same date or at any time thereafter. The Bowen Declaration further asserts that no purported responses to Special Interrogatories have ever been received, although purported responses to Form Interrogatories and Requests for Production were received on 8/4/2025. Based on this record, the Court concludes that Cole has failed to comply with the 7/16/2025 order compelling his responses to McCracken’s Form Interrogatories.

Notwithstanding Cole’s failure to comply with the 7/16/2025 order, the Court declines to impose terminating sanctions at this time. For misuse of the discovery process, the Court may impose sanctions, up to and including terminating sanctions, if authorized by another provision of the Civil Discovery Act. (Code Civ. Proc. §2023.030, subd. (a)-(d).) Failing to respond to an authorized method of discovery constitutes a misuse of the discovery process. (Code Civ. Proc. §2023.010, subd. (d).) Where a party fails to obey an order compelling responses, the Court is authorized to impose sanctions, including issue, evidence, or terminating sanctions. (Code Civ. Proc. §§2030.290, subd. (c) & 2031.300, subd. (c).) The Court may also impose a monetary sanction, either in lieu of or in addition to an issue, evidence, or terminating sanction. (Id.)

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.)

“A decision to order terminating sanctions should not be made lightly. But where a violation is willful, preceded by a history of abuse, and the evidence shows that less severe sanctions would not produce compliance with the discovery rules, the trial court is justified in imposing the ultimate sanction.” (Mileikowsky v. Tenet Healthsystem (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 262, 279-280.) Sanctions are generally imposed in an incremental approach starting with monetary sanctions, with terminating sanctions being a last resort. (Lopez v. Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York, Inc. (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 566, 604.)

Based on the present record, this Court concludes that the drastic remedy of terminating sanctions is not appropriate at this time and would under the circumstances here constitute an unjustified windfall to McCracken. Accordingly, to the extent this

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV019993: MCKAGUE LAW GROUP, PC vs SHIRLEY 12/16/2025 Hearing on Motion to Compel Answers to Special Interrogatories, Set One Served on Nathan Cole in Department 53

motion seeks terminating sanctions against Cole, it is denied.

McCracken’s request for issue and/or evidentiary sanctions precluding Cole “from providing argument or evidence to support any claims against [McCracken] or to support a defense to the Cross-Complaint” (Mov. MPA, p.6:26-28) shall also be denied. First, the broad scope of the proposed issue and/or evidentiary sanction would have essentially the same effect as a terminating sanction and is inappropriate at this time for the reasons explained above. Second, CRC Rule 3.1345(a)(7) expressly requires that a separate statement be filed and served when any issue or evidentiary sanctions are sought but here, McCracken filed no separate statement in support of the present motion.

However, because the Court finds that Cole has to date failed to comply with the 7/16/2025 order compelling verified responses to Special Interrogatories same without objections, the Court will again order Cole to provide verified responses, without objections, to McCracken’s Special Interrogatories but this time no later than 12/31/2025 (unless McCracken agrees to a later date memorialized in writing).

The Court also awards McCracken monetary sanctions under Code of Civil Procedure §2030.290(c) in the amount of $460, representing one hour of attorney time at a reasonable plus the $60 filing fee for this motion. Sanctions to be paid by Cole no later than 1/30/2026 and if not paid by that date, McCracken may prepare for the Court’s signature a formal order granting the sanctions, which may itself be enforced in the same manner and with the same force and effect as a money judgment. (See, e.g., Newland v. Superior Court (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 608, 615 [“monetary sanction orders are enforceable through the execution of judgment laws”].)

Moving parties to provide notice of this ruling and file proof of service of same within five (5) court days.

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc. §1019.5; CRC Rule 3.1312.)