Judge: Christopher K. Lui, Case: 21STCV16528, Date: 2025-01-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV16528    Hearing Date: January 14, 2025    Dept: 76

The following tentative ruling is issued pursuant to Rule of Court 3.1308 at 2:38 PM on January 13, 2025. 

Notice of intent to appear is REQUIRED pursuant to California Rule of Court 3.1308(a)(1).  The Court does not desire oral argument on the motion addressed herein. 

As required by Rule 3.1308(a)(1), any party seeking oral argument must notify ALL OTHER PARTIES and the staff of Department 76 by 4:00 p.m. on January 13, 2025.

Notice to Department 76 may be sent by email to smcdept76@lacourt.org or telephonically at 213-830-0776.

Per Rule of Court 3.1308, if notice of intention to appear is not given, the Court may not permit oral argument.

            Travel agency Plaintiffs allege that Defendant travel management companies, motivated by animus against orthodox and/or Hassidic Jews, refused to deal with Plaintiffs and terminated a contract with Plaintiffs in breach of contract.

            Defendant All Star Travel Holdings moves for terminating sanctions based upon Plaintiffs’ failure to comply with the Court’s July 11, 2024 discovery order.

TENTATIVE RULING

            Defendant All Star Travel Holdings’ motion for terminating sanctions based upon Plaintiffs’ failure to comply with the Court’s July 11, 2024 discovery order is DENIED without prejudice.

ANALYSIS

Motion For Terminating, Issue and/or Evidentiary Sanctions

            Defendant All Star Travel Holdings moves for terminating sanctions based upon Plaintiffs’ failure to comply with the Court’s July 11, 2024 discovery order that Plaintiffs identify responsive documents in accordance with Civ. Proc. Code, § 2031.280(a) by August 9, 2024

The court has the authority to impose sanctions against a party that engages in the misuse of the discovery process. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030.) This includes failing to respond to an authorized method of discovery and disobeying a court order to provide discovery. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2023.010 (d) and (g).)  A party engaging in such conduct may be subject to monetary, issue and/or evidentiary, and terminating sanctions. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2023.030(a), (b) (c) and (d).)           

            Where a party fails to obey an order compelling responses, “the court may make those orders that are just, including the imposition of an issue sanction, an evidence sanction, or a terminating sanction . . . In lieu of or in addition to that sanction, the court may impose a monetary sanction. . . .”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290(c); § 2031.300(c).) Indeed, the court may impose terminating sanctions after a party’s failure to comply with one court order to produce discovery if it is an “attempt[ ] to tailor the sanction to the harm caused by the withheld discovery.” (Collisson & Kaplan v. Hartunian (1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 1611, 1618-19.)

"[T]he question before this court is not whether the trial court should have imposed a lesser sanction; rather, the question is whether the trial court abused its discretion by imposing the sanction it chose. [Citation.] Moreover, imposition of a lesser sanction would have permitted [defendants] to benefit from their stalling tactics. [Citation.] The trial court did not abuse its discretion by tailoring the sanction to the particular abuse. [Citation.]" ( Id. at pp. 36-37.)

(Collisson, supra, 21 Cal.App.4th at 1620.)

            In deciding whether to impose a terminating sanction, the trial court is to consider the totality of the circumstances: “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.” (Lang v. Hochman (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 1225, 1246.)

            In the instant matter, the Court indicated in its July 11, 2024 minute order that if Defendant wishes to obtain such organization sooner, Defendant may undertake the costs of organizing the documents itself, then seek sanctions against Plaintiffs for the actual costs of such organization. This appears to be Defendant’s recourse. Plaintiffs have not withheld production of documents, but have only made it difficult for Defendant to evaluate such production. Defendant has not demonstrated that it would be impossible to do so. If Defendant attempts to organize the responsive documents to no avail, then Defendant may bring a renewed motion for terminating, issue and/or evidentiary sanctions.

            As such, the motion for sanctions is DENIED without prejudice.