SANDFORD vs TERRA NOVA COUNSELING DDP, et al.

24CV007808: SANDFORD vs TERRA NOVA COUNSELING DDP, et al. 01/22/2026 Hearing on Motion for Sanctions in Department 53

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 53 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

24CV007808: SANDFORD vs TERRA NOVA COUNSELING DDP, et al. 01/22/2026 Hearing on Motion for Sanctions in Department 53

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.

TENTATIVE RULING:

The moving papers do not provide notice of the Court’s tentative ruling system, as required by Local Rule 1.06, and do not provide the correct address for this Court’s Dept. 53/54. Moving party is directed to contact opposing counsel and advise him/her of Local Rule 1.06 and the Court’s tentative ruling procedure and the manner to request a hearing, along with the correct address for Dept. 53/54. If moving party is unable to contact opposing counsel prior to the hearing, moving party is ordered to appear at the hearing in person, by Zoom or by telephone.

The notice of motion does not comply with Code of Civil Procedure §1010 or CRC Rule 3.1110(a), requiring the moving party to specify the relief sought and the grounds on which the motion is based.

The moving papers fail to comply with CRC Rule 3.1110(b)(3)-(4).

The proof of service attached to the moving papers fails to comply with Code of Civil Procedure §1013a, requiring the “exact title” of each document being served.

Plaintiff in pro per Sandford’s motion for unspecified “sanctions against Defendants and their counsel for abuse of process, misrepresentation, and discovery misconduct, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §§2016.090, 2023.010, and 128.5” is DENIED, as follows.

Factual Background

According to the moving papers, plaintiff Sandford now seeks unspecified “sanctions against Defendants and their counsel for abuse of process, misrepresentation, and discovery misconduct, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §§2016.090, 2023.010, and 128.5.” The Points & Authorities assert that “Defendants have engaged in a deliberate pattern of abuse of process, misrepresentation, and harassment” in filing “false Requests for Admission containing defamatory lies, submitted demurrers on knowingly false grounds and relied on a termination letter proven false by Plaintiff’s February 6, 2024 signed letter.” Plaintiff maintains that this “misconduct misled the Court, wasted judicial resources, and inflicted severe prejudice on Plaintiff,” making sanctions “mandatory under California law.”

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV007808: SANDFORD vs TERRA NOVA COUNSELING DDP, et al. 01/22/2026 Hearing on Motion for Sanctions in Department 53

Discussion

Plaintiff in pro per Sandford’s motion for “sanctions against Defendants and their counsel for abuse of process, misrepresentation, and discovery misconduct, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §§2016.090, 2023.010, and 128.5” is denied.

First, the Court finds that the Notice of Motion fails to provide proper and adequate notice of not only the specific nature of the “sanctions” being sought but also the specific grounds on which this motion is based. Notably, the notice of motion fails to indicate whether plaintiff is actually seeking monetary, issue, evidentiary and/or terminating sanctions against “Defendants and their counsel” and to the extent any or all of these sanctions are premised on one or more provisions of the Civil Discovery Act at Code of Civil Procedure §2016.010 et seq., §2023.040 explicitly provides that the Notice of Motion must not only “identify every person, party, and attorney against whom the sanction is sought” but also “specify the type of sanction sought.” Here, plaintiff’s Notice of Motion fails to comply with the latter provision relating to the specific type of sanctions being sought pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §2016.010 et seq. and thus, to the extent this motion purports to seek sanctions under §2016.090 and §2023.010, it shall be denied.

Second, while the Notice of Motion does specifically cite to Code of Civil Procedure §2016.090, this statute does not include any language which authorizes this Court to impose any monetary, issue, evidentiary and/or terminating sanctions against “Defendants and their counsel” for any reason but even if it did, the moving papers fail to competently demonstrate that “Defendants and their counsel” have failed to comply with any particular provision of §2016.090. Indeed, the Notice of Motion nowhere suggests that this motion is brought on the grounds that “Defendants and their counsel” failed comply with any particular provision of §2016.090. Accordingly, plaintiff is not entitled to any sanctions against “Defendants and their counsel” pursuant to §2016.090.

Likewise, although the Notice of Motion includes a specific reference to Code of Civil Procedure §2023.010, this statute merely identifies various forms of misuse of the discovery process. However, §2023.010 does not in and of itself authorize the Court to impose any sanctions for any of the conduct identified therein. Thus, the mere fact plaintiff has cited this statute in his Notice of Motion does not necessarily entitle him to any sanctions as against “Defendants and their counsel” for any of the conduct alleged in the moving papers.

While §2023.030 does authorize the imposition of monetary, issue, evidentiary and/or terminating sanctions for conduct constituting a misuse of the discovery process, this statutory provision was not among those identified in plaintiff’s Notice of Motion. Even if it had been, such sanctions would still not be imposed here because, as explained above, §2023.040 required plaintiff to include in his Notice of

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV007808: SANDFORD vs TERRA NOVA COUNSELING DDP, et al. 01/22/2026 Hearing on Motion for Sanctions in Department 53

Motion “the type of sanction sought” but he failed to do so. Consequently, because of this defect in the Notice of Motion, the Court declines to impose any monetary, issue, evidentiary and/or terminating sanctions for any of the conduct claimed to be a misuse of the discovery process within the meaning of §2023.010.

To the extent plaintiff is actually seeking some unspecified monetary, issue, evidentiary, terminating and/or other sanctions based on “discovery misconduct” and/or misuse of the discovery process within the meaning of §2023.010, plaintiff is not entitled to any sanctions pursuant to the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure §128.5 because subdivision (e) of this statute unequivocally states that “[t]his section shall not apply to disclosures and discovery requests, responses, objections, and motions.” (Underline added for emphasis.)

While the moving papers insist “Defendants and their counsel” have “engaged in a deliberate pattern of abuse of process, misrepresentation, and harassment” by filing “false Requests for Admission containing defamatory lies,” the Court finds the moving papers fails to provide sufficient evidence to bear out this contention. Further, the Court notes that requests for admissions are not “filed” in the first instance, unless they later become evidence in connection with a related motion. Also, it is not a viable contention to seek sanctions based upon the propounding of requests for admissions containing propositions that are purportedly “false.” A party’s proper response to a request for admission that includes a matter which the party believes to be false is to simply “deny” that request for admission.

Moreover, as to plaintiff’s other allegations about defendants’ and their counsel’s conduct, it is unclear from this motion how and what conduct could constitute a basis for sanctions. Indeed, even if specified conduct had been identified, plaintiff would be required to demonstrate how such conduct by “Defendants and their counsel” would not be absolutely privileged under the litigation privilege found in Civil Code §47(b) which is under current California law construed broadly so as to protect any statement or conduct, even if done with malice, which is reasonably related to a pending or anticipated lawsuit. (See, e.g., People ex rel.

Gallegos v. Pacific Lumber Co. (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 950, 958-959; Wise v. Thrifty Payless, Inc. (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 1296, 1302-1303.)

Plaintiff further asserts that “Defendants and their counsel” have in the past “submitted demurrers on knowingly false grounds,” apparently referring to the various demurrers which were filed on 8/30/2024 and heard on 12/10/2024 as well as motion to deem admitted ultimately granted on 1/22/2025. (See, Mov. MPA, p.2:21-27; Mov. Decl., Ex. D-E.) However, the moving papers fail to show how either the demurrers filed on 8/30/2024 and heard on 12/10/2024 or the motion to deem admitted was “submitted on knowingly false grounds.” Likewise, plaintiff has failed to persuade the Court that any of these filings “inflicted severe prejudice” on him. Finally, the Court notes that the proper response to a demurrer that a plaintiff does not agree with is to file

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV007808: SANDFORD vs TERRA NOVA COUNSELING DDP, et al. 01/22/2026 Hearing on Motion for Sanctions in Department 53

a timely opposition setting forth the basis for overruling the demurrer. Not only did plaintiff fail to timely file oppositions to the demurrers ruled upon on 12/10/2024, but as to the merits of such demurrers, the Court sustained the demurrers at least in part, finding that the arguments therein were meritorious. This result would not support a basis for sanctions in any event.

In light of the foregoing, this Court remains unpersuaded that the sanctions requested by plaintiff are “mandatory under California law.”

Disposition

For the reasons explained above, plaintiff’s present motion for “sanctions against Defendants and their counsel” is DENIED in its entirety.

The Clerk is directed to provide notice of this ruling on all parties.

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc. §1019.5; CRC Rule 3.1312.)