Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 JASON HELFRICH, D.C., et al., Case No.: 25-cv-224-JLS-MMP 9 Plaintiffs, ORDER: 10 v. 1. SETTING HEARING ON 11 JAMES PUNGHORST, D.C., et al., PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 12 Defendants. MONETARY SANCTIONS AND EVIDENTIARY 13 SANCTIONS; AND 14 2. PROVIDING TENTATIVE 15 RULING 16 [ECF No. 63] 17 19 Before the Court is Plaintiff Jason Helfrich, D.C.’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion for 20 Monetary Sanctions and Evidentiary Sanctions against pro se Defendants James Punghorst, 21 D.C. and Sharlene Swanberg, D.C. (“Defendants”). ECF No. 63. Plaintiff requests three 22 forms of relief: 23 (1) Finding Defendants violated the Court’s June 9, 2026 Order; (2) Precluding Defendants from using in motion practice or at trial any 24 document, witness, factual contention, or other evidence responsive to 25 Plaintiff’s First Set of Interrogatories or First Set of Requests for Production that was not disclosed or produced by the court-ordered deadline, including 26 evidence supporting Defendants’ affirmative defenses, or alternatively 27 requiring full compliance within seven days and precluding the use of any responsive information or documents not disclosed by that further deadline; 28 1 and (3) Imposing monetary sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 2 37(b)(2)(C), jointly and severally against Defendants James Punghorst, D.C. 3 and Sharlene Swanberg, D.C., in the amount of $2,362.50. 4 ECF No. 63 at 4 (citation modified). The Court set a briefing schedule, requiring 5 Defendants to file a response by August 21, 2026. ECF No. 66 ¶ 1. Defendants did not file 6 an opposition, in violation of the Court’s order. See ECF Nos. 66, 67. 7 Having reviewed the motion and procedural posture of the case, the Court finds a 8 hearing in this matter is appropriate prior to issuing a ruling. Accordingly, the Court SETS 9 a hearing on Plaintiff’s pending motion, ECF No. 63, before the Honorable Michelle M. 10 Pettit, United States Magistrate Judge, for September 18, 2026 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 11 3D. Defendants James Punghorst and Sharlene Swanberg are ORDERED to appear 12 in person. Plaintiff’s counsel is ORDERED to appear and may appear remotely. 13 In anticipation of the hearing, the Court provides its TENTATIVE ruling as set forth 14 below: 15 1. The Court TENTATIVELY FINDS Defendants James Punghorst and 16 Sharlene Swanberg violated the Court’s June 9, 2026 Order in violation of Federal Rule of 17 Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 37(b)(2)(A). 18 2. The Court TENTATIVELY GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for monetary 19 sanctions to be paid by Defendants to Plaintiff in the amount of $2,362.50 under Rule 20 37(b)(2)(C). 21 3. The Court DEFERS ruling on Plaintiff’s motion for evidentiary sanctions 22 under Rule 37(b)(2)(A)(ii). 23 I. RELEVANT BACKGROUND 24 The Court detailed the relevant discovery background in its June 9, 2026 Order. ECF 25 No. 58. On August 18, 2025, Plaintiff served a First Set of Interrogatories (“ROGs”) and 26 First Set of Requests for Production of Documents (“RFPs”) on both Defendant James 27 Punghorst, D.C. and Sharlene Swanberg, D.C. via their then-counsel pursuant to Rules 33 28 and 34. ECF Nos. 36-1 ¶ 2; 37-1 ¶ 2. Defendants’ responses were due within thirty days, 1 no later than September 17, 2025. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(2); 34(b)(2)(A). Defendants 2 did not serve timely responses. ECF Nos. 36-1 ¶ 7; 37-1 ¶ 7. 3 On February 25, 2026, Defendants each served responses to Plaintiff’s RFPs. ECF 4 No. 37-1, Exh. 1. Plaintiff contended the belated responses are still deficient under Rule 5 34. Defendants did not serve responses to Plaintiff’s ROGs. 6 On March 31, 2026, Plaintiff filed the motions to compel responses to ROGs and 7 further responses to RFPs. ECF Nos. 36; 37. 8 On June 5, 2026, the Court granted Defendants’ motion to withdraw as counsel of 9 record. ECF No. 57. 10 On June 9, 2026, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motions to compel and ordered 11 Defendants, now proceeding pro se, to “fully answer Plaintiff’s first set of interrogatories 12 under oath no later than July 8, 2026” and to “produce documents responsive to Plaintiff’s 13 first set of requests for production no later than July 8, 2026.” ECF No. 58 at 11. While 14 the Court did not order monetary sanctions, the Court explicitly cautioned Defendants: 15 “future discovery delays and failure to follow Court Orders may result in sanctions.” Id. at 16 10. 17 After the Court-ordered deadline for Defendants to respond to Plaintiff’s RFPs and 18 ROGs passed, Plaintiff submitted a request for a discovery conference, alleging Defendants 19 did not respond to meet and confer requests. ECF No. 62. The Court granted Plaintiff’s 20 request for leave to file a motion for sanctions based on Defendants’ failure to comply with 21 the Court’s Order. Id. 22 On August 5, 2026, Plaintiff filed the instant motion. The Court set a briefing 23 schedule and ordered “Defendants must file a response no later than August 21, 2026. See 24 CivLR 7.1(f)(3)(a). The failure to file a written opposition may constitute consent to the 25 granting of the motion. CivLR 7.1(f)(3)(c).” ECF No. 66. Defendants did not respond to 26 Plaintiff’s motion. 27 // 28 // 1 II. LEGAL STANDARD 2 Rule 37 “authorizes the district court, in its discretion, to impose a wide range of 3 sanctions when a party fails to comply with the rules of discovery or with court orders 4 enforcing those rules.” Wyle v. R.J. Reynolds Indus., Inc., 709 F.2d 585, 589 (9th Cir. 1983) 5 (citation omitted). 6 Rule 37 provides “[i]f a party . . . fails to obey an order to provide or permit 7 discovery, including an order under Rule 26(f), 35, or 37(a), the court where the action is 8 pending may issue further just orders.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A). The orders may 9 include: 10 (i) directing that the matters embraced in the order or other designated facts be taken as established for purposes of the action, as the prevailing party 11 claims; 12 (ii) prohibiting the disobedient party from supporting or opposing designated claims or defenses, or from introducing designated matters in evidence; 13 (iii) striking pleadings in whole or in part; 14 (iv) staying further proceedings until the order is obeyed; (v) dismissing the action or proceeding in whole or in part; 15 (vi) rendering a default judgment against the disobedient party; or 16 (vii) treating as contempt of court the failure to obey any order except an order to submit to a physical or mental examination. 17 18 Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A)(i)–(vii). 19 Evidentiary sanctions can be case dispositive. To determine whether a case 20 dispositive sanction is appropriate, the Court considers a five-factor test: “(1) the public’s 21 interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its dockets; 22 (3) the risk of prejudice to the party seeking sanctions; (4) the public policy favoring 23 disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions.” Conn. 24 Gen. Life Ins. Co. v. New Images of Beverly Hills, 482 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2007). 25 “What is most critical for case-dispositive sanctions, regarding risk of prejudice and of less 26 drastic sanctions, is whether the discovery violations threaten to interfere with the rightful 27 decision of the case.” Valley Eng’rs v. Electric Eng’g Co., 158 F.3d 1051, 1057 (9th Cir. 28 1998) (citation modified). 1 Instead of or in addition to these sanctions, “the court must order the disobedient 2 party, the attorney advising that party, or both to pay the reasonable expenses, including 3 attorney’s fees, caused by the failure, unless the failure was substantially justified or other 4 circumstances make an award of expenses unjust.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(C). 5 III. ANALYSIS 6 A. The Court Tentatively Finds Defendants Violated the Court’s June 7 9, 2026 Order 8 On the record currently before the Court, Defendants violated the Court’s June 9, 9 2026 Order. ECF No. 58. The June 9, 2026 Order specifically required Defendants to “fully 10 answer Plaintiff’s first set of interrogatories under oath no later than July 8, 2026” and to 11 “produce documents responsive to Plaintiff’s first set of requests for production no later 12 than July 8, 2026.” Id. at 11. Plaintiff represents at the time of the instant motion filing, 13 neither Defendant “has served interrogatory answers, produced documents, requested an 14 extension, or otherwise explained the failure to obey the Court’s Order.” ECF No. 63 at 7. 15 The Court has no record of Defendants’ complying with its Order. Nor do Defendants 16 refute Plaintiff’s assertion. 17 B. The Court Tentatively Grants Plaintiff’s Request for Expenses 18 Defendants violated the Court’s Order. As Plaintiff explains “[t]he Court’s prior 19 concern about former counsel does not excuse this . . . violation: counsel had withdrawn, 20 Defendants received a direct order and express warning, and they neither sought additional 21 time nor identified any obstacle” to comply with the Court Order. ECF No. 63 at 12–13. 22 The Court agrees. Defendants have not demonstrated a substantial justification or other 23 circumstances to make an award of expenses unjust. Plaintiff represents he incurred 24 $2,362.50 in attorney’s fees regarding this motion, specifically 4.5 hours at an hourly rate 25 of $525 for Mr. Stone. ECF No. 63-1 at 3. The Court tentatively finds both the hourly rate 26 and number of hours reasonable. Accordingly, the Court TENTATIVELY GRANTS 27 Plaintiff’s request for Defendants to pay $2,362.50 to Plaintiff in expenses under Rule 28 37(b)(2)(C). 1 C. The Court Defers Ruling on Plaintiff's Motion for Evidentiary 2 Sanctions 3 The Court finds a hearing regarding Plaintiff's motion appropriate. Defendants have 4 || proceeded pro se since June 5, 2026. ECF No. 57. Defendants failed to file an opposition 5 ||to this motion as ordered, and the Court has not heard from Defendants since they became 6 || pro se. Given the potentially case-dispositive nature of evidentiary sanctions, the Court 7 || finds a hearing necessary to develop the record. Therefore, the Court DEFERS ruling on 8 ||the motion and may make additional findings after the hearing. 9 IV. CONCLUSION 10 The motion shall be heard in person on September 18, 2026 at 10:00 AM in 11 |/Courtroom 3D of the Schwartz Courthouse. Defendants James Punghorst and Sharlene 12 || Swanberg are ORDERED to appear in person. Plaintiff's counsel is ORDERED to appear 13 may appear remotely. Failure to appear or comply with this Order may result in 14 || sanctions. 15 At the hearing, Defendant shall be prepared to address: (1) the Court’s June 9, 2026 16 || Order, ECF No. 58, (2) Plaintiff's motion, ECF No. 63, and (3) the instant Tentative ruling. 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 ||Dated: September 4, 2026 7 VW f, hy [y. Sta 19 HON. MICHELLE M. PETTIT United States Magistrate Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28