Koavoty USA, Inc. v. Michael Antonio Commercial, Inc.

TENTATIVE RULING FOR AUGUST 27, 2026 Department R12 - Judge Kory Mathewson Koavoty USA, Inc. v. Michael Antonio Commercial, Inc. – CIVRS2333288 Motion: Enforce Court’s October 27, 2025 Order Compelling Further Responses to Requests for Production and Production of Documents and request for monetary, issue, and evidentiary sanctions. Movant: Defendant-Cross-Claimant Michael Antonio Commercial, Inc. (MACI) Respondent: Plaintiff Koavoty USA, Inc. Ruling: Motion to Enforce Court’s October 27, 2025 Order Compelling Further Responses to Requests for Production and Production of Documents is GRANTED.

Koavoty is Ordered to serve Code-compliant, verified further responses to Requests for Production Nos. 1 and 3–44, including responses complying with section 2031.230 as to Requests Nos. 9–16 within 10 calendar days after service of notice of entry of the order; to produce all responsive documents in its possession, custody, or control; state in its verified responses whether it withheld any responsive document based on attorney-client privilege or work product; and serve a privilege log identifying each responsive document withheld on either ground.

Monetary sanctions in the amount of $2,460.00 is GRANTED and due within 30 days; issue and/or evidentiary sanctions are DENIED. Michael Antonio Commercial to provide Order and give notice. ______________________________________________________________________________

Defendants admit they have not complied with the prior Court order. They did not comply by December 1, 2025, the stipulated date of December 31, 2025, and then when they purported to comply on January 28, 2026, they misrepresented (as stated by Cole, mistakenly and unknowingly) they had complied in full, and then proceeded to produce more documents on March 5, 2026.

If a party fails to obey a court order compelling a further response to requests for production of documents, “the court may make those orders that are just” including issue, evidentiary, terminating, and/or monetary sanctions. (Code Civ. Proc., §2031.310, subd. (i).) Upon proper notice, the Court may impose specified sanctions, including monetary, evidentiary, terminating, and other sanctions, against any party “engaging in conduct that is a misuse of the discovery process.” (Code Civ. Proc., §2023.030.) Disobedience of a court order to provide discovery constitutes a misuse of the discovery process. (Code Civ. Proc., §2023.010, subd. (g).)

The Court grants the motion to Enforce Court’s October 27, 2025 Order Compelling Further Responses to Requests for Production and Production of Documents and request for monetary sanctions, but denies issues and/or evidentiary sanctions at this time.

While MACI requests issue and evidentiary sanctions, “Discovery sanctions ‘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.’” (Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 967, 992.) Discovery sanctions should not be imposed as punishment. (Id., at

p. 992.) The discovery statutes contemplate an incremental approach to sanctions, starting with monetary and ending with termination. (Ibid.) “If a lesser sanction fails to curb misuse, a greater sanction is warranted: continuing misuses of the discovery process warrant incrementally harsher sanctions until the sanction is reached that will curb the abuse.” (Ibid.)

Here, monetary sanctions are appropriate. The requested amount, however, 8 hours at $600+ per hour, is excessive for the simplicity of the issues in this motion. The Court awards sanctions in the reduced amount to $2,460 (4hrs at $600/hr + $60 filing fee).

Dated: August 27, 2026

____________________________ Judge Kory Mathewson

4