Angela Ramirez vs. Pacific Gas & Electric Company

34-2019-00255681-CU-OE-GDS: Angela Ramirez vs. Pacific Gas & Electric Company 06/11/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Responses to Defendant's Request for Supplemental Responses to Interrogatories, Set One in Department 16D

Tentative Ruling

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 16C Zoom Link is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16030877014 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 160 3087 7014. 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

34-2019-00255681-CU-OE-GDS: Angela Ramirez vs. Pacific Gas & Electric Company 06/11/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Responses to Defendant's Request for Supplemental Responses to Interrogatories, Set One in Department 16D

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. ALL MOTIONS NOTICED FOR DEPARTMENT 53 WILL BE HEARD IN DEPARTMENT 16D OF THE NEW COURTHOUSE. ALL PAPERS FOR THIS DEPARTMENT MUST BE FILED AT THIS NEW LOCATION AND WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED AT THE HALL OF JUSTICE. ALL HEARINGS WILL TAKE PLACE AT THIS NEW LOCATION. PARTIES MAY CONTINUE TO APPEAR REMOTELY IN DEPARTMENT 16D UNLESS SPECIFICALLY ORDERED OTHERWISE. ***

TENTATIVE RULING: Defendant Pacific Gas & Electric Company’s unopposed motion to compel Plaintiff Angela Ramirez’s responses to supplemental interrogatory is granted and denied in parts as follows.

No opposition to the motion was filed. 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 June 25, 2026, Plaintiff Angela Ramirez shall serve verified responses, without objections, to Defendant’s supplemental interrogatory propounded pursuant to CCP § 2030.070 as requested in the moving papers.

Defendant also requests terminating, issue, evidentiary, and/or monetary sanctions. 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 CCP § 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 13, 2023, orders. The Court declined to impose terminating sanctions because at that point it had only imposed monetary sanctions upon Plaintiff for her

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2019-00255681-CU-OE-GDS: Angela Ramirez vs. Pacific Gas & Electric Company 06/11/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Responses to Defendant's Request for Supplemental Responses to Interrogatories, Set One in Department 16D

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.

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.” (CCP § 2023.030(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. § 2023.030(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. § 2023.030(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 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.)

Here the Court declines to impose terminating sanctions in connection with the instant motion which seeks to compel Plaintiff’s responses to Defendant’s supplemental interrogatory. Defendant’s primary request on the instant motion is that Plaintiff be ordered to respond to the supplemental interrogatory. As set forth above, that request is granted. The Court cannot properly order Plaintiff to respond to one set of discovery, while simultaneously granting a request for terminating sanctions based on noncompliance with orders related to different discovery not before the Court by way of any motion for sanctions based upon non-compliance with such orders. The two requests are inconsistent. 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.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2019-00255681-CU-OE-GDS: Angela Ramirez vs. Pacific Gas & Electric Company 06/11/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Responses to Defendant's Request for Supplemental Responses to Interrogatories, Set One in Department 16D

The same holds true with Defendant’s request for evidence and issue sanctions. In any event, a request for issue or evidentiary sanctions requires a separate statement. (CRC Rule 3.1345(a)(7).) Defendant did not file a separate statement. The “[f]ailure to include the separate statement required by CRC 3.1345 is ground for denial” of the motion. (Weil & Brown, Civ. Proc. Before Trial, 8:115.1, p. 8F 65-66.) “We conclude that because Plaintiffs did not comply with the requirements of former rule 335 [now 3.1345], the trial court was well within its discretion to deny the motion to compel discovery on that basis.” (Mills v. U.S. Bank (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 871, 893.)

Lastly, the request for monetary sanctions 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 C.R.C. 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 CCP § 2023.010 sets forth an example of a misuse of the discovery process, CCP § 2023.010 does not authorize sanctions on its own. CCP § 2023.030 sets forth available sanctions for misuse of discovery. CCP § 2023.030(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 CCP § 2023.030(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 method or any other provision of this title”, but that the more specific statute governing the instant motion, CCP § 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 noncompliance 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.

The notice of motion does not provide notice of the Court’s tentative ruling system as required by Local Rule 1.06(D). Defendant’s counsel is ordered to notify Plaintiff’s counsel immediately of the tentative ruling system and to be available at the hearing in person, via Zoom or by telephone, in the event Plaintiff’s counsel appears without following the procedures set forth in Local Rule 1.06(B).

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC Rule

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2019-00255681-CU-OE-GDS: Angela Ramirez vs. Pacific Gas & Electric Company 06/11/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Responses to Defendant's Request for Supplemental Responses to Interrogatories, Set One in Department 16D

3.1312 or other notice is required.