Judge Christopher K. Lui, Case 21STCV16941 2023-04-19 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Christopher K. Lui, Case: 21STCV16941, Date: 2023-04-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV16941 Hearing Date: April 19, 2023 Dept: 76

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)(2), any party seeking oral argument must notify ALL OTHER PARTIES and the staff of Department 76 of their intent to appear and argue. Notice to Department 76 may be sent by email to smcdept76@lacourt.org or telephonically at 213-830-0776. If notice of intention to appear is not given and the parties do not appear, the Court will adopt the tentative ruling as the final ruling.

Plaintiff attorneys seek to recover unpaid attorney’s fees pursuant an attorney’s lien from the settlement recovery of a former client who discharged Plaintiffs from representation in a personal injury lawsuit.

Plaintiffs Eunice S. Hahn and Law Offices of Eunice S. Hahn, APC move for terminating, issue, and/or evidentiary, and monetary sanctions upon Defendant Baird A. Brown.

The Court continued the hearing on this motion and ordered the parties to meet and confer regarding document inspection and file a status report by April 17, 2023.

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiffs Eunice S. Hahn and Law Offices of Eunice S. Hahn, APC’s motion for evidentiary sanctions is GRANTED as follows: Defendant Baird A. Brown is prohibiting and/or precluding from offering any evidence contradicting that Plaintiff is entitled to an additional $63,620.00 in legal fees from the underlying personal injury matter, after offset for the partial payment that was received.

Plaintiffs’ request for monetary sanctions against Defendant Baird Brown is GRANTED in the reduced amount of $75. Plaintiff attorney is representing herself in pro per, and thus may only recover costs, not attorney’s fees. Sanctions are to be paid to Plaintiffs’ counsel within 20 days.

ANALYSIS

Motion For Terminating, Issue and Evidentiary Sanctions

Plaintiffs Eunice S. Hahn and Law Offices of Eunice S. Hahn, APC move for terminating, issue, and/or evidentiary and monetary sanctions upon Defendant Baird A. Brown. The basis for this motion is that on December 13, 2022, this Court ordered Defendant to produce documents in response to Plaintiffs’ Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, and also further ordered both Defendants to submit code-compliant responses to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, within 30 days. As of the date of the filing of this Motion, Defendant has not fully complied with the Court’s Order. Defendant only served further responses to form interrogatories on behalf of Defendant Brown individually.

CCP § 2031.310(i) addresses the situation where a party fails to obey an order compelling a further response to requests for production of documents:

(i) Except as provided in subdivision (j), if a party fails to obey an order compelling further response, 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).

(Civ. Proc. Code § 2031.310(i).)

Civ. Proc. Code, § 20230.30(e) addresses the situation where a party fails to obey an order compelling a further response to interrogatories:

(e) If a party then fails to obey an order compelling further response to interrogatories, 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).

(Civ. Proc. Code § 2030.300(e).)

The Court need not order Defendant to provide responses because such an order has already issued. The question is whether terminating sanctions are appropriate.

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.)

While Defendant filed a Declaration in opposition indicating that Defendant served a further response to from and special interrogatories and asked for a time to arrange for the inspection of document, Defendant did not attached such further responses to special interrogatories. Moreover, Defendant was required to serve verified further responses to requests for production, in addition to arranging for an inspection of documents.

Nonetheless, Plaintiff admits in the Reply that Defendant served some responses, which Plaintiff contends were not code-compliant, and only on behalf of one Defendant. The Court continued the hearing to allow the parties to meet and confer regarding document production. In the status conference brief, Plaintiff indicates that, due to Defendants’ failure to fully produce responsive documents, Plaintiff has been unable to ascertain the breakdown of the gross settlement in the underlying case, how much Defendant has already taken in fees, how much time a paralegal spent on the case, how much time an attorney spent on the case, the total number of hours that Defendant spent on the case, where the disputed funds are currently being held, whether the disputed funds have been improperly disbursed to some third party, and has been unable to review Defendant’s Mediation Brief which is arguably the key document supporting Defendant’s claim to $123,620.00 in attorney’s fees.

After due consideration, the Court will GRANT Plaintiff’s evidentiary sanctions as follows: Defendant Baird A. Brown is prohibiting and/or precluding from offering any evidence contradicting that Plaintiff is entitled to an additional $63,620.00 in legal fees from the underlying personal injury matter, after offset for the partial payment that was received.

However, as to Defendant Baird A. Brown, PC, the notice of motion did not seeks sanctions against the corporation, only against Baird A. Brown individually. As such, the Court cannot impose sanctions against the corporation. (See Civ. Proc. Code, § 2023.040.)

“No sanctions case has approved an award based on reasonable expenses for the time and effort expended by a pro se litigant.” (Argaman v. Ratan (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 1173, 1180.) “[W]e conclude an attorney litigating in propria persona may not be awarded monetary discovery sanctions based on compensation for time and effort expended as a result of a misuse of the discovery process.” (Id.)

However, a pro se litigant, whether attorney or layperson, can recover reasonable costs incurred. (See Kravitz v. Superior Court (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1015, 1020 (“But we think that some of the costs that pro se litigants incur, if reasonably identifiable and allocable, are recoverable as sanctions--even though those costs are ones that lawyers ordinarily include in their hourly rates or other fee structures. (Citations omitted.)”)