Willis VS Zip, Inc.

RG17866531: Willis VS Zip, Inc. 05/26/2026 Hearing on Motion for Sanctions (reservation no. 478576662726) in Department 16

Tentative Ruling - 05/21/2026 Victoria Kolakowski

Defendants Twin City Fire Insurance Company and Sentinel Insurance Company Limited’s Motion for Sanctions is denied.

I.

Background

In November 2025, the Court ordered Plaintiff Marian Latasha Willis to further respond to Twin City and Sentinel’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. (Grealish Decl. Supp. Mot. ¶ 15, Jan. 26, 2026; see also id. Exs. D, E, (copies of responses).)

On December 17, 2025, Twin City and Sentinel emailed Willis to discuss what he perceived to be evasive responses. (Id. ¶ 16, Ex. F.) Willis did not respond. (Id. ¶ 17.) Twin City and Sentinel did not follow up with Willis. (See id.)

The following month, Twin City and Sentinel again moved for terminating, issue, or evidentiary sanctions against Willis for disobeying the Court’s order to further respond to the form and special interrogatories. (Mot., 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 Twin City and Sentinel 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 Twin City and Sentinel’s perceived to be Willis’s discovery abuse. Twin City and Sentinel contested the tentative ruling.

Late in the hearing, 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? RG17866531: Willis VS Zip, Inc. 05/26/2026 Hearing on Motion for Sanctions (reservation no. 478576662726) in Department 16 2. If only part of the motion is moot, what issue or evidentiary sanctions against Willis remain appropriate?

(Order Twin City & Sentinel’s Mot. Sanctions, Apr. 21, 2026.)

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

• “Petrich and Zip, Inc. did not negligently ‘direct[], order[], or permit[]’ Smith to give Williams a ride.” • “Neither Petrich nor Zip, Inc. had the right, obligation, or authority to direct Smith.” • “Neither Petrich nor Zip, Inc. controlled 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.” • “There are no provisions in the Rental Agreement pursuant to which Williams Sports Rentals transferred and Petrich and Zip, Inc. ‘assumed primary custody and complete operational/navigational’ control of the jet ski entrusted to Smith.”

(Suppl. Reply 3:2–21, May 7, 2026.) Twin City and Sentinel further argued that the requested issue sanctions remained appropriate “to prevent further litigation about the allegations concerning Petrich and Zip.” (Id. 2:16–18; see also id. 2:24–26 (“Given the possibility of future proceedings, the Insurers seek clarity as to these discovery issues and Plaintiff’s unsupported theories and contentions. This will preclude any possible relitigation of these issues.”).)

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.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

RG17866531: Willis VS Zip, Inc. 05/26/2026 Hearing on Motion for Sanctions (reservation no. 478576662726) in Department 16 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.

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,” “[n]either Petrich nor Zip, Inc. had the right, obligation, or authority to direct Smith,” “[n]either Petrich nor Zip, Inc. controlled 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 Twin City and Sentinel did not carry their burden of persuading the Court that Willis’s responses are evasive. The Court reviewed Willis’s responses to special interrogatories 8 and 9, and form interrogatory 17.1 concerning admission requests 5 through 1. The Court is unpersuaded that her responses are evasive. (See Grealish Decl. Exs. B, at 8:28– 10:23 (providing responses to special interrogatories 8 and 9); see also id. Ex. E, at 4:28–6:3 (providing response to form interrogatory 17.1).)

Against her remaining theory of duty, her responses adequately state the legal and factual basis of her denials of Twin City and Sentinel’s admission requests and are responsive to special interrogatories 8 and 9. It is clear to the Court that Twin City and Sentinel disagree with Willis on those legal and factual issues stated. But the issue before the Court is whether her responses are evasive; and Twin City and Sentinel did not persuasively show that they are. Accordingly, the Court need not reach whether terminating, issue, or evidentiary sanctions would be a proper remedy for what Twin City and Sentinel’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: Separate Statement to Motion to Terminate Sanctions filed by Twin City Fire Insurance Company and Sentinel Insurance Company Limited on 01/26/2026 is Denied.

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

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

RG17866531: Willis VS Zip, Inc. 05/26/2026 Hearing on Motion for Sanctions (reservation no. 478576662726) in Department 16 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" 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