Judge Anne Hwang, Case Number: 19STCV22311, Date: 2024-09-30 Tentative Ruling

PLEASE NOTE: Parties are encouraged to meet and confer concerning this tentative ruling to determine if a resolution may be reached. If the parties are unable to reach a resolution and a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the Court at sscdept32@lacourt.org indicating that party’s intention to submit. The email shall include the case number, date and time of the hearing, counsel’s contact information (if applicable), and the identity of the party submitting on this tentative ruling. If the Court does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may place the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. If all parties do not submit on this tentative ruling, they should arrange to appear in-person or remotely. Further, after the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion and adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.

Following a jury trial, on December 9, 2022, the Court entered judgment on a special verdict against Defendant Kaelyn Marie Hairston.

On May 23, 2024, Judgment Creditors Charisa Ware and Anita Brewer (“Judgment Creditors”) served an Application and Order for Appearance and Examination containing a Request for Production of Documents on Judgment Debtor Kaelyn Marie Hairston (“Hairston”). (Brahman Decl. ¶ 7, Exh. 1 of Exh. B.)

On July 23, 2024, a debtor examination took place; Hairston appeared and was examined by Judgment Creditors. The parties stipulated to continue the examination on August 13, 2024. (Min. Order, 7/23/24.)

Judgment Creditors now move for an order to (1) compel Hairston to disclose information and produce documents; (2) to continue the debtor examination to the stipulated date of October 24, 2024; and (3) to hold Hairston in contempt for failing to appear on August 13, 2024. Judgment Creditors also seek monetary sanctions. Hairston opposes and Judgment Creditors reply.

“A judgment creditor may conduct discovery directly against the judgment debtor by means of a judgment debtor examination (§ 708.110), written interrogatories (§ 708.020), and requests for production of documents (§ 708.030). Section 708.030, subdivision (a) provides: ‘The judgment creditor may demand that any judgment debtor produce and permit the party making the demand, or someone acting on that party's behalf, to inspect and to copy a document that is in the possession, custody, or control of the party on whom the demand is made in the manner provided in [the Civil Discovery Act], if the demand requests information to aid in enforcement of the money judgment. The judgment debtor shall respond and comply with the demand in the manner and within the time provided by [the Civil Discovery Act].’” (SCC Acquisitions, Inc. v. Superior Court (2015) 243 Cal.App.4th 741, 751-52.)

“Section 708.030, subdivision (a) is unambiguous. In plain terms, it places but two limitations on the scope of requests for production of documents. First, the document requested must be ‘in the possession, custody, or control of the party on whom the demand is made.’ [Citation.] Second, the document requested must have ‘information to aid in enforcement of the money judgment.’ [Citation.] If the document requested is ‘in the possession, custody, or control of the party on whom the demand is made’ and has ‘information to aid in enforcement of the money judgment,’ then the document is subject to discovery under section 708.030, regardless whether the document relates to the judgment debtor or to third parties.” (SCC Acquisitions, Inc., supra, 243 Cal.App.4th at 752.)

Section 708.030 also provides: “[i]nspection demands served pursuant to this section may be enforced to the extent practicable, in the same manner as inspection demands in a civil action.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 708.030, subd. (c).) Therefore, if the judgment debtor fails to timely respond or responds insufficiently, the judgment creditor may bring a motion to compel or compel further under Code of Civil Procedure sections 2031.300 and 2031.310.

Judgment Creditor asks the Court to order Hairston to provide testimony and produce the documents requested.

Under Code of Civil Procedure Section 2031.300, if a party fails to serve a timely response to a demand for inspection, the party making the demand may move for an order compelling response to the demand. (Code Civ. Pro § 2031.300 (b).) The party who fails to serve a timely response to a demand for inspection waives any objection to the demand unless the court finds that the party has subsequently served a response that is in substantial compliance or party’s failure was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300 (a)(1)- (2).)

Courts shall impose a monetary sanction against any party who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to a demand for inspection unless the party acted with substantial justification or other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300 (c).)

Here, Judgment Creditors assert that Hairston failed to provide any responses or objections to Judgment Creditors’ document requests at the July 23, 2024 examination. In opposition, while Hairston asserts she provided all relevant documents in her possession, there is no further evidence (such as exhibits) that she served responses to the Requests for Production at issue. Additionally, the transcript from the examination on July 23, 2024 indicates that Hairston brought no documents. (Brahman Decl., Exh. B, 7:27-8:3.) Therefore, the motion to compel is granted.

Judgment Creditors seek $2,468.91 in monetary sanctions against Hairston based on a $600 hourly rate for three hours preparing the motion, one hour preparing the reply, and $68.91 for the filing fee. (Brahman Decl. ¶ 13.) Hairston has failed to set forth facts showing she acted with substantial justification. However, the amount appears excessive given the type of motion and nature of the reply. Therefore, the Court awards monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,868.91 (3 hours of attorney time, plus the filing fee).

As for compelling information from Hairston that she did not disclose at the debtor’s examination, the Court notes that a further examination will be held.

Next, Judgment Creditors ask the Court to hold Hairston in contempt for failure to appear on August 13, 2024.

Code of Civil Procedure section 1209(a)(5) provides that disobedience of any order is a contempt of the authority of the court.

The procedures for contempt are quasi-criminal and require personal service on the refusing party, regardless of whether they are represented by counsel. (Cedars-Sinai Imaging Medical Group v. Superior Court (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 1283, 1286-87.)¿ If the OSC re: Contempt is issued, it is normally served as a summons would be, and then the citee is arraigned.¿ (Id. at 1286.) “Although a contempt may arise, as here, in the context of a civil action, a contempt proceeding is punitive and separate from the cause out of which it arises [citation omitted], and it is for this reason that every "i" must be dotted and every "t" crossed.”¿ (Cedars-Sinai, supra, 83 Cal.App.4th at 1286.) To initiate a contempt proceeding, the moving party must show a failure to comply with a court order was willful. (See Chapman v. Superior Court (1968) 261 Cal.App.2d 194, 200-201 [finding of contempt reversed where no evidence of willful disobedience to subpoena]; Van v. Language Line Services, Inc. (2017) 8 Cal.App.5th 73, 82 [“Punishment for contempt ‘can only rest upon [a] clear, intentional violation of a specific, narrowly drawn order. Specificity is an essential prerequisite of a contempt citation.].)¿

Here, Judgment Creditors’ request to hold Hairston in contempt is not procedurally proper. Accordingly, the request is denied.

Judgment Debtor Kaelyn Marie Hairston shall provide verified responses, without objections, to the Request for Production within 15 days. Monetary sanctions in the reduced amount of $1,868.91 are awarded against Kaelyn Marie Hairston and shall be due to counsel for Judgment Creditors within 30 days of this order.

The Court continues the Hearing on Application for Order for Appearance and Examination for October 28, 2024 at 1:30 p.m. at Department 32 of the Spring Street Courthouse. Kaelyn Marie Hairston is ordered to appear personally.

[1] Although the parties stipulated to October 24, 2024 at 3:00 p.m., the Court notes that on September 19, 2024, a substitution of attorney was filed indicating that Hairston is now self-represented.

DEPT:	32
HEARING DATE:	September 30, 2024
CASE NUMBER:	19STCV22311
MOTIONS:	Motion for an Order to (1) Compel Judgment Debtor to Disclose Information and Produce Documents; (2) to Continue the JDE to Stipulated Date; (3) to hold Judgment Debtor in Contempt; (4) for Monetary Sanctions
MOVING PARTY:	Plaintiffs/Judgment Creditors Charisa Ware and Anita Brewer
OPPOSING PARTY:	Defendant/Judgment Debtor Kaelyn Marie Hairston