Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 21STCV33181, Date: 2024-01-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV33181    Hearing Date: April 10, 2024    Dept: 32

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. 

TENTATIVE RULING

BACKGROUND

Defendant Jorge Duran (Defendant) moves for terminating sanctions against Plaintiff Evelyn Espin (Plaintiff) for failure to comply with the Court’s February 29, 2024 discovery order. Defendant also moves for monetary sanctions. Plaintiff opposes and Defendant replies.

LEGAL STANDARD

“To the extent authorized by the chapter governing any particular discovery method or any other provision of this title, the court, after notice to any affected party, person, or attorney, and after opportunity for hearing, may impose…sanctions against anyone engaging in conduct that is a misuse of the discovery process.” (Code Civ. Proc. section 2023.030.) The court may impose a terminating sanction for misuse of the discovery process by any of the following: “(1) An order striking out the pleadings or parts of the pleadings of any party engaging in the misuse of the discovery process; (2) An order staying further proceedings by that party until an order for discovery is obeyed; (3) An order dismissing the action, or any part of the action, of that party; (4) An order rendering a judgment by default against that party.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.030(d).)  Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery, or disobeying a court order to provide discovery, constitutes a misuse of the discovery process. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010, subd. (d), (g).)

“The trial court may order a terminating sanction for discovery abuse ‘after considering the totality of the circumstances: [the] conduct of the party to determine if the actions were willful; the detriment to the propounding party; and the number of formal and informal attempts to obtain the discovery.’” (Los Defensores, Inc. v. Gomez (2014) 223 Cal. App. 4th 377, 390, quoting Lang v. Hochman (2000) 77 Cal. App. 4th 1225, 1246.)  

“Generally, ‘[a] decision to order terminating sanctions should not be made lightly.  But where a violation is willful, preceded by a history of abuse, and the evidence shows that less severe sanctions would not produce compliance with the discovery rules, the trial court is justified in imposing the ultimate sanction.’” (Los Defensores, supra, 223 Cal. App. 4th at p. 390 [citation omitted].)   

“Under this standard, trial courts have properly imposed terminating sanctions when parties have willfully disobeyed one or more discovery orders.” (Los Defensores, supra, 223 Cal.App.4th at p. 390 citing Lang, supra, 77 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1244-1246 [discussing cases]; see, e.g., Collisson & Kaplan v. Hartunian (1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 1611, 1617-1622 [terminating sanctions imposed (by striking the defendant’s Answer and subsequently granting default judgment) after defendants failed to comply with one court order to produce discovery]; Laguna Auto Body v. Farmers Ins. Exchange (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 481, 491, disapproved on other grounds in Garcia v. McCutchen (1997) 16 Cal.4th 469, 478, n. 4 [terminating sanctions imposed against the plaintiff for failing to comply with a discovery order and for violating various discovery statutes].) 

Under Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290(c), “[i]f a party then fails to obey an order compelling [interrogatory] answers, the court may make those orders that are just, including the imposition of an issue sanction, an evidence sanction, or a terminating sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010). In lieu of or in addition to that sanction, the court may impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010).”

DISCUSSION

On February 29, 2024, the Court granted Defendant’s unopposed motion to compel Plaintiff to serve verified responses without objections, to Supplemental Requests for Production of Documents, Set Two, within 10 days. Defendant provided notice on March 1, 2024. The responses were therefore due on March 11, 2024. On March 12, 2024, Defendant filed the instant motion asserting that he had not received responses.

Plaintiff’s opposition, filed March 29, 2024, asserts that she has provided verified responses to all Supplemental discovery demands.[1] (Opp., 2; Bazikyan Decl. ¶ 4.)

In reply, Defendant concedes that Plaintiff has supplied verified responses, but notes she has not paid monetary sanctions. (Reply, 4.) There is no authority for imposition of sanctions for failure to pay sanctions. (See Newland v. Superior Court (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 608, 615 [holding, “a terminating sanction issued solely because of a failure to pay a monetary discovery sanction is never justified.”].) Sanctions orders are enforceable as money judgments unless the court orders otherwise. Thus, the remedy to enforce payment of monetary sanctions is to obtain and levy a writ of execution on assets of the debtor. (Id. at 615.)

Therefore, Defendant has failed to show that the actions of Plaintiff were willful and preceded by a history of abuse. Therefore, terminating sanctions are not appropriate at this time. Also, because it does not appear Defendant attempted to inquire about the responses prior to filing this motion, the Court declines to award further monetary sanctions.

CONCLUSION

Therefore, Defendant’s motion for terminating and monetary sanctions is DENIED.

Defendant shall provide notice of the Court’s ruling and file a proof of service of such.