Motion to Compel – Defendant Taylor Knoop; Motion to Compel – Defendant Carmen Knoop
TENTATIVE RULINGS LAW & MOTION CALENDAR Wednesday, June 10, 2026, 3:00 p.m. Courtroom 16 – Hon. Elliot L. Daum for Hon. Patrick M. Broderick 3035 Cleveland Avenue, Suite 200, Santa Rosa
TO JOIN “ZOOM” ONLINE, Courtroom 16 Meeting ID: 161-460-6380 Passcode: 840359 https://sonomacourt-org.zoomgov.com/j/1614606380?pwd=NUdpOEZ0RGxnVjBzNnN6dHZ6c0ZQZz09
TO JOIN “ZOOM” BY PHONE, By Phone (same meeting ID and password as listed above): (669) 254-5252 US (San Jose)
The following tentative rulings will become the ruling of the Court unless a party desires to be heard. If you desire to appear and present oral argument as to any motion, YOU MUST notify the Court by telephone at (707) 521-6725, and all other opposing parties of your intent to appear by 4:00 p.m. the court day immediately before the day of the hearing. Parties in motions for claims of exemption are exempt from this requirement.
PLEASE NOTE: The Court WILL NOT provide a court reporter for this calendar. If there are any concerns, please contact the Court at the number provided above.
1. 24CV00531, Knoop v. Knoop
1. Motion to Compel – Defendant Taylor Knoop Plaintiffs Anthony Knoop and Heidi Knoop (“Plaintiffs”) move for an order compelling defendant Taylor Knoop (“Defendant”) to furnish responses to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories, Set One and Set Two; Special Interrogatories, Set One; and Requests for Admissions, Set One. Plaintiffs request sanctions in the amount of $1,883.63. On March 11, 2026, Plaintiffs served Defendant with their Form Interrogatories, Sets One and Two; Special Interrogatories, Set One; and Requests for Admissions, Set One. (Glaubiger decl., ¶¶5, 6, Exhibits B-E.)
Despite responses being due, as of the date of the motion, none were provided. (Id., ¶7.) Plaintiffs’ attorney spent one hour on this motion. (Id., ¶8.) His hourly rate is $450. (Ibid.) Having established the discovery requests were properly served and Defendant failed to respond, the motion is GRANTED. Sanctions are granted in the amount of $533.63. As jury trial is set for July 10, 2026, Defendant Taylor Knoop is directed to provide responses, without objections, to Plaintiffs’ Form Interrogatories, Set One and Set Two; Special Interrogatories, Set One; and Requests for Admissions, Set One, within 10 days of the service of this order, and to pay sanctions within 30 days of service of this order.
Plaintiffs’ counsel is directed to submit a written order to the court consistent with this ruling.
2. Motion to Compel – Defendant Carmen Knoop 1
Plaintiffs Anthony Knoop and Heidi Knoop (“Plaintiffs”) move for an order compelling defendant Carmen Knoop (“Defendant”) to furnish responses to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories, Set One and Set Two. Plaintiffs request sanctions in the amount of $1,883.63. On March 11, 2026, Plaintiffs served Defendant with their Form Interrogatories, Sets One and Two. (Glaubiger decl., ¶5, Exhibits B, C.) Despite responses being due, as of the date of the motion, none were provided. (Id., ¶6.) Plaintiffs’ attorney spent one hour on this motion. (Id., ¶7.)
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
His hourly rate is $450. (Ibid.) Having established the discovery requests were properly served and Defendant failed to respond, the motion is GRANTED. Sanctions are granted in the amount of $533.63. As jury trial is set for July 10, 2026, Defendant Carmen Knoop is directed to provide responses, without objections, to Plaintiffs’ Form Interrogatories, Set One and Set Two, within 10 days of the service of this order, and to pay sanctions within 30 days of service of this order. Plaintiffs’ counsel is directed to submit a written order to the court consistent with this ruling.
2. 24CV04493, Todt v. Simply Solar
Defendant Simply Solar (“Defendant” or “Simply Solar”) moves for summary judgment against Plaintiff Anne Todt (“Plaintiff”) or, in the alternative, summary adjudication on the grounds that there is no triable issue as to any of Plaintiff’s causes of action for: (1) disability discrimination in violation of California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”); (2) age discrimination in violation of FEHA; (3) retaliation in violation of FEHA; (4) failure to prevent discrimination in violation of FEHA; (5) failure to accommodate in violation of FEHA; (6) failure to engage in the interactive process in violation of FEHA; and (7) wrongful termination in violation of public policy.
Defendant argues there remain no triable issues of fact as to any of Plaintiff’s causes of action, as the evidence conclusively establishes that Defendant is not liable for any of Plaintiff’s causes of action. In Defendant’s memorandum, they also argue for summary adjudication of Plaintiff’s request for punitive damages.
1. The Complaint On July 30, 2024, Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging causes of action for: (1) disability discrimination in violation of California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”); (2) age discrimination in violation of FEHA; (3) retaliation in violation of FEHA; (4) failure to prevent discrimination in violation of FEHA; (5) failure to accommodate in violation of FEHA; (6) failure to engage in the interactive process in violation of FEHA; and (7) wrongful termination in violation of public policy.
Plaintiff was employed as a sales department representative for over two (2) years from approximately June 2021 to September 29, 2023. (Complaint, ¶5.) Plaintiff alleges that during her employment with Defendant she suffered a disability consisting of extreme back pain and that she requested a standing desk as a reasonable accommodation. (Id., ¶¶6, 7.) At the time of her termination, Plaintiff was 53 while her coworkers were mostly in their 20’s. (Id., ¶¶8, 11.)
2. Objections Plaintiff’s objections to the Johnson declaration are overruled. Defendant’s objections in reply to Plaintiff’s evidence are overruled.
3. First Cause of Action – Disability Discrimination in Violation of FEHA Plaintiff alleges Defendant discriminated against her by failing to reasonably accommodate her disability, refusing to engage in the interactive process, and by terminating her employment.
2