COOPER vs MUELLER, et al.

23CV013862: COOPER vs MUELLER, et al. 09/02/2025 Hearing on Motion to Dismiss Action for Failure to Comply with Court Order Compelling Discovery in Department 54

Tentative Ruling

Defendants Alisa Rose Mueller, Leslie Paul Mueller, and Grace June Rose Mueller’s (collectively, “Defendants”) motion for terminating sanctions against plaintiff Jill Annette Cooper (“Plaintiff”) is ruled upon as follows.

This actions arises from an automobile/pedestrian accident that occurred on December 24, 2024.

On April 15, 2025, the Court granted Defendants’ three motions to compel Plaintiff to serve verified initial responses to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Requests for Production of Documents and ordered them to respond by no later than April 25, 2025. The Court also imposed monetary sanctions against Plaintiff in the amount of $1,362.60 ($454.20 for each motion) to be paid no later than May 15, 2025. Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Court’s discovery orders and Defendants seek terminating sanctions based on that failure.

As with the prior discovery motions, Plaintiff’s counsel has filed a “Non-Opposition and Declaration of Counsel.” Therein, Plaintiff’s counsel states that he has called, left voice messages, texted, used FaceBook Messenger, and emailed Plaintiff many times and received either no response or an automatic email response that states:

“NOTICE: If you have just sent me an-email, fax, or text and have not verbally spoken with me to notify me you have ‘I have not received it.’

In supporting Reasonable Accommodation compliance that email be reserved for the transfer of documents/fillable forms/audio files; not general conversation, questions/answers, and in order to exchange any information ... I must be contacted directly by phone prior to the transmission of any emails (electronic mails), attatchments [sic], or documents. I may provide a one time fax number if applicable at that time, and I will then confirm the successful or unsuccessful receipt of any transmissions/emails, and ask questions if needed.

If possible please unlock locked pdfs, and format any fillable information, or ‘save as’ in ‘.pdf’ before attempting transmission. If this is not possible please inform me of such when we speak. Thank you

Please note ‘voicemails’ will not be recorded, so do not leave due to unstable cellular service. If you leave one anyway ‘It was not received.’

Sincerely, Miss Cooper”

23CV013862: COOPER vs MUELLER, et al. 09/02/2025 Hearing on Motion to Dismiss Action for Failure to Comply with Court Order Compelling Discovery in Department 54

(Declaration of Christopher L. Kreeger (“Kreeger Decl.”) at ¶¶ 1-4.)

Plaintiff’s counsel declares Plaintiff has “simply stopped communicating” with him. (Kreeger Decl. ¶ 7.) Plaintiff’s counsel has not moved to withdraw as counsel and remains Plaintiff’s counsel of record at this point.

For misuse of the discovery process, including as is the case here, disobeying a court order to provide discovery, the Court may impose issue, evidence, terminating, or monetary sanctions. (See, e.g. Code of Civil Procedure §§ 2023.010(d) and (g), 2023.030(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. 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.)

Despite Plaintiff’s non-compliance with court orders, the Court is not persuaded that terminating sanctions are warranted at this time. There has been only one set of discovery orders that Plaintiff has disobeyed thus far. The Court finds that this type of abuse is insufficient to warrant such severe sanctions at this time, even coupled with Plaintiff’s failure to oppose this instant motion on the merits. Accordingly, the motion for terminating sanctions is DENIED. The Court notes, however, that although terminating sanctions have been denied, a continued failure to comply with Court Orders may warrant terminating or evidentiary sanctions.

Plaintiff, however, is again ordered to serve verified responses, without objections, to Defendants’ Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Requests for Production of Documents and pay the outstanding sanctions of $1,362.60 no later than October 2, 2025, unless the parties mutually agree in writing to a later date.

Defendants’ request for monetary sanctions in the amount of $619.71 against Plaintiff incurred for bringing this motion is also GRANTED. Sanctions to be paid no later than October 2, 2025 and, if not paid by that date, Defendants may prepare for the Court's

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV013862: COOPER vs MUELLER, et al. 09/02/2025 Hearing on Motion to Dismiss Action for Failure to Comply with Court Order Compelling Discovery in Department 54

signature a formal order granting the sanctions, which may then be enforced as a separate judgment. (Newland v. Superior Court (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 608, 615.)

The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1312, or further notice is required.

NOTICE:

Consistent with Local Rule 1.06(B), any party requesting oral argument on any matter on this calendar must comply with the following procedure:

To request limited oral argument, on any matter on this calendar, you must call the Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-2615 by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the hearing and advise opposing counsel. At the time of requesting oral argument, the requesting party shall leave a voice mail message: a) identifying themselves as the party requesting oral argument; b) indicating the specific matter/motion for which they are requesting oral argument; and c) confirming that it has notified the opposing party of its intention to appear and that opposing party may appear via Zoom using the Zoom link and Meeting ID indicated below. If no request for oral argument is made, the tentative ruling becomes the final order of the Court.

Unless ordered to appear in person by the Court, parties may appear remotely either telephonically or by video conference via the Zoom video/audio conference platform with notice to the Court and all other parties in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure 367.75. Although remote participation is not required, the Court will presume all parties are appearing remotely for non-evidentiary civil hearings. The Department 53/54 Zoom Link is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept53.54 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 4650 6749. To appear on Zoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID referenced above. NO COURTCALL APPEARANCES WILL BE ACCEPTED.

Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf. Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-13.Pdf

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 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.