Willis VS Zip, Inc.

RG17866531: Willis VS Zip, Inc. 05/26/2026 Hearing on Motion for Sanctions (reservation no. 627418685036) in Department 16

Tentative Ruling - 05/21/2026 Victoria Kolakowski

Defendant Kai Petrich’s Motion for Sanctions is denied.

I.

Background

In November 2025, the Court ordered Plaintiff Marian Latasha Willis to further respond to Petrich’s form interrogatory 17.1 and special interrogatories 1 through 5, and 10, without further objection (except on grounds of attorney work-product or privilege), to the extent doing so did not disclose an expert’s opinion. (Order §§ II, III, Nov. 4, 2025.) In early December 2025, Willis served her further responses. (Mihaly Decl. Supp. Mot. ¶ 58, Jan. 20, 2026; see also Kronenberg Decl. Opp’n Mot. Ex. 4 (copy of responses to form interrogatory 17.1).)

In mid-December 2025, Petrich and Willis exchanged emails discussing what Petrich perceived to be evasive responses. (Id. ¶¶ 59, 60.) The parties did not resolve their dispute. (Id. ¶ 60.)

In January 2026, Petrich moved for terminating, issue, and evidentiary sanctions against Willis because of her failure to “provide complete and non-evasive responses,” as required by the Court’s order. (Mot. 2:9, Jan. 20, 2026.) Willis opposed. (Opp’n, Apr. 1, 2026.)

Ahead of the first hearing on this Motion, the Court issued a tentative ruling denying the Motion. In it, the Court tentatively found that Petrich did not adequately articulate how Willis disobeyed this Court’s order by providing evasive responses. The Court tentatively did not reach whether terminating, issue, or evidentiary sanctions would be a proper remedy for what Petrich’s perceived to be Willis’s discovery abuse. Petrich contested the tentative ruling.

Late in the hearing on the Motion, Willis waived her theories of theories of duty under (1) the theory that the rental agreement is a time charter and (2) the theory that “[i]f the actor does an act, and subsequently realizes or should realize that it has created an unreasonable risk of causing physical harm to another, he is under a duty to exercise reasonable care to prevent the risk from taking effect” under section 321(1) of the Restatement (Second) of Torts.

The Court took the Motion under submission and requested supplemental briefing on two issues:

1. Are the motions moot considering that Willis stated at the hearing that she is no longer pursuing the theory that the rental agreement is a time charter and the theory under section 321(1) of the Restatement (Second) of Torts?

2. If only part of the motion is moot, what issue or evidentiary sanctions against Willis remain appropriate? RG17866531: Willis VS Zip, Inc. 05/26/2026 Hearing on Motion for Sanctions (reservation no. 627418685036) in Department 16 (Order Petrich’s Mot. Sanctions, Apr. 21, 2026.)

Willis filed her supplemental opposition, arguing that the Motion was moot. (Suppl. Opp’n, May 4, 2026.) Petrich filed his supplemental reply, arguing that the following issue sanctions remained ripe:

• “There are no provisions in the Rental Agreement pursuant to which [Defendant Williams Sports Rentals, Inc.] transferred and Kai Petrich ‘assumed primary custody and complete operational/navigational’ of the jet-ski entrusted to Smith.” • “Petrich did not ‘direct[], order[], or permit[]’ Smith to give Williams a ride.” • “Petrich did not have the right, obligation, or authority to direct Smith.” • “Petrich did not control who rode aboard Smith’s jet-ski.” • “Smith was not obligated or duty bound to heed, obey, or accept Petrich’s alleged direction or instruction.”

(Suppl. Reply 1:13–21, May 7, 2026.) Petrich further argued that evidentiary sanctions are appropriate to “prohibit[] [Willis] from introducing evidence on those matters.” (Id. 1:23.)

II.

Legal Standard

An asking party may move to compel further responses to an interrogatory if they deem that “[a]n answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete,” “[a]n exercise of the option to produce documents under Section 2030.230 is unwarranted or the required specification of those documents is inadequate,” or “[a]n objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general.” (Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 2030.300(a)(1)–(3).) The court must impose a monetary sanction unless it finds that the subject to be sanctioned acted with “substantial justification” or “other circumstances” make the sanction unjust. (§ 2030.300(d).) Where a party disobeys an order compelling further responses, the court may also impose issue, evidence, or terminating sanctions. (§ 2031.310(e).)

“The purpose of the discovery statutes is to enable a party to obtain evidence under the control of his adversary in order to further the efficient and economical disposition of a lawsuit.” (Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal. App. 3d 771, 793.) When imposing a sanction for failure to obey a court’s order, “[t]he 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.” (Id.)

III.

Discussion

The Court finds that the Motion is largely moot because the requested sanctions concern Willis’s now-waived theories of duty. In effect, Willis voluntarily conceded to an issue sanction that her theories of duty lacked merit. This waiver left Petrich’s alleged duty of care under general maritime law.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

RG17866531: Willis VS Zip, Inc. 05/26/2026 Hearing on Motion for Sanctions (reservation no. 627418685036) in Department 16 The Court next analyzes whether any of the requested sanctions are proper against the theory that Petrich owed a duty of care under general maritime law. But before addressing that issue, the Court notes that four of the requested issue sanctions appear ripe for determination: that “Petrich did not ‘direct[], order[], or permit[]’ Smith to give Williams a ride,” “Petrich did not have the right, obligation, or authority to direct Smith,” “Petrich did not control who rode aboard Smith’s jet-ski,” and that “Smith was not obligated or duty bound to heed, obey, or accept Petrich’s alleged direction or instruction.”

The Court finds that Petrich did not carry his burden of persuading the Court that Willis’s responses are evasive. The Court reviewed Willis’s response to form interrogatory concerning admission requests 23 through 26. The Court is unpersuaded that her response is evasive. (See Kronenberg Decl. Ex. 4, at 4:18–5:21 (providing full text of response).) Against her remaining theory of duty, her response adequately states the legal and factual basis of her denials of Petrich’s admission requests. It is clear to the Court that Petrich disagrees with Willis on those legal and factual issues stated. But the issue before the Court is whether her response is evasive; and Petrich did not persuasively show that it is. Accordingly, the Court need not reach whether terminating, issue, or evidentiary sanctions would be a proper remedy for what Petrich’s perceived to be discovery abuses.

IV. Orders The Motion is denied.

The Court denies the requests for judicial notice as moot.

***

The Motion re: KAI PETRICHS NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR ISSUE, EVIDENTIARY, AND TERMINATING SANCTIONS filed by Kai Petrich on 01/20/2026 is Denied.

The Court orders counsel to obtain a copy of this order from the eCourt portal.

If a party does not timely contest the foregoing Tentative Ruling and appear at the hearing, the Tentative Ruling will become the order of the court.

How Do I Contest a Tentative Ruling? Find your case in eCourt at https://eportal.alameda.courts.ca.gov/ using “Case Search” or “Calendar Search” (after you log in) Select the Tentative Rulings Tab Select "Click to Contest this Ruling"

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

RG17866531: Willis VS Zip, Inc. 05/26/2026 Hearing on Motion for Sanctions (reservation no. 627418685036) in Department 16 Enter your name and briefly identify the issues you wish to argue. Select "Proceed"

You must also notify the department via email (Dept16@alameda.courts.ca.gov) and opposing parties by no later than 4:00 PM, one court day before the scheduled hearing.

Please provide this information to any opposing parties.

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT THE HEARING/CONFERENCE WILL BE IN- PERSON WITH THE OPTION TO APPEAR REMOTELY.

COUNSEL AND PARTIES MAY APPEAR EITHER IN-PERSON IN DEPARTMENT 16 AT THE ADMINISTRATION BUILDING OR BY REMOTELY THROUGH THE ZOOM PLATFORM. ZOOM LOG-IN INFORMATION FOR DEPARTMENT 16 IS BELOW.

Join ZoomGov Meeting https://alameda-courts-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16024053017 Meeting ID: 160 2405 3017