JUAN CARLOS ARANA VS. SUN & GARDEN, INC., DBA SON & GARDEN BY FARMHOUSE ET AL

SF Superior Court - Law & Motion / Discovery Dept 302 - CGC24618722 - March 16, 2026 Hearing date: March 16, 2026 Case number: CGC24618722 Case title: JUAN CARLOS ARANA VS. SUN & GARDEN, INC., DBA SON & GARDEN BY FARMHOUSE ET AL Case Number: | | CGC24618722 | Case Title: | | JUAN CARLOS ARANA VS. SUN & GARDEN, INC., DBA SON & GARDEN BY FARMHOUSE ET AL | Court Date: | | 2026-03-16 09:00 AM | Calendar Matter: | | DEFENDANT SUN & GARDEN, INC., DBA SON & GARDEN BY FARMHOUSE KITCHEN NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR ISSUE SANCTIONS AND PARTIAL DISMISSAL OF PLAINTIFF'S WAGE AND HOUR CLAIMS BASED ON PLAINTIFF'S INVOCATION OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT PRIVILEGE (ADDED TO CALENDAR FOR TENTATIVE RULING ENTRY PURPOSES ONLY) | Rulings: | | On the Law & Motion/Discovery calendar for Monday, March 16, 2026, Line 9, DEFENDANT SUN & GARDEN, INC., DBA SON & GARDEN BY FARMHOUSE KITCHEN NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR ISSUE SANCTIONS AND PARTIAL DISMISSAL OF PLAINTIFF'S WAGE AND HOUR CLAIMS BASED ON PLAINTIFF'S INVOCATION OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT PRIVILEGE (ADDED TO CALENDAR FOR TENTATIVE RULING ENTRY PURPOSES ONLY) (Part 2 of 3, tentative ruling continues from previous entry) "Misuses of the discovery process include, but are not limited to, the following: (a) Persisting, over objection and without substantial justification, in an attempt to obtain information or materials that are outside the scope of permissible discovery[;] (b) Using a discovery method in a manner that does not comply with its specified procedures[;] (c) Employing a discovery method in a manner or to an extent that causes unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression, or undue burden and expense[;] (d) Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery[;] (e) Making, without substantial justification, an unmeritorious objection to discovery[;] (f) Making an evasive response to discovery[;] (g) Disobeying a court order to provide discovery[;] (h) Making or opposing, unsuccessfully and without substantial justification, a motion to compel or to limit discovery[;] and, (i) Failing to confer in person, by telephone, or by letter with an opposing party or attorney in a reasonable and good faith attempt to resolve informally any dispute concerning discovery, if the section governing a particular discovery motion requires the filing of a declaration stating facts showing that an attempt at informal resolution has been made." (Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.010.)

Defendant here has failed to show Plaintiff "engag[ed] in conduct that is a misuse of the discovery process." The record shows Plaintiff invoked his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination in his RFA responses and at his deposition. The record does not show he misused the discovery process when he did so. To the extent Defendant believes Plaintiff's invocation was wrong, it has not moved to compel further responses or answers on these grounds. The record does not support sanction under section 2023.030.

That said, Plaintiff's invocation may have consequences. The court may employ a wide range of civil remedies where a party invokes the Fifth Amendment privilege. In civil cases, courts or triers of fact may draw adverse inferences when a party invokes the Fifth Amendment. (Baxter v. Palmigiano (1976) 425 U.S. 308; Avant! Corp. v. Superior Court (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 876.) The nature and severity of the remedy often depends on whether the person claiming the privilege is a plaintiff or defendant. (See Alvarez v.

Sanchez (1984) 158 Cal.App.3d 709, 712 ["civil consequences of the invocation of Fifth Amendment rights (including the striking of the pleading and the ensuing dismissal and/or default) may well depend on whether the party asserting the privilege is the plaintiff or the defendant."].) While these remedies are often referred to as sanctions, they are not discovery sanctions imposed for the misuse of discovery, they are generally remedies to address an unfair burden imposed on the other side by virtue of a party's invocation.

As such, they are a matter for the judge assigned to try the matter, not a discovery or law and motion department. The motion is denied without prejudice to raising the issue of remedies before the trial judge. (Tentative ruling continues in Part 3 of 3). |