Judge: Christopher K. Lui, Case: 21STCV40439, Date: 2022-12-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV40439    Hearing Date: December 13, 2022    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.

            This is an action to shut down an alleged illegally operated immigration consulting business.

            Plaintiff Immigrant Rights Defense Council, LLC moves for terminating sanctions or, in the alternative, an order compelling Defendant Michaela Chang to comply with this Court’s August 16, 2022 order. Plaintiff also requests monetary sanctions.

TENTATIVE RULING

The hearing on Plaintiff Immigrant Rights Defense Council, LLC’s motion for terminating sanctions is CONTINUED to January 13, 2022 at 8:30 a.m. If Defendant Chang has not provided responses to requests for production of documents by that date, the Court intends to impose terminating sanctions in the form of striking Defendant’s answer and entering her default.

            Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions against Defendant Michaela Chang is GRANTED in the reduced amount of $810. Sanctions are to be paid to Plaintiff’s counsel within 10 days.

ANALYSIS

Motion For Terminating Sanctions

            Plaintiff Immigrant Rights Defense Council, LLC moves for terminating sanctions striking Defendant Michaela Chang’s answer and entering her default or, in the alternative, an order compelling Defendant to comply with this Court’s August 16, 2022 order compelling responses to requests for production of documents. (Declaration of Sebastian M. Medvei, ¶ 4.) Plaintiff also requests monetary sanctions.

            CCP § 2031.300(c) addresses the situation where a party fails to obey an order compelling a response to requests for production of documents:

If a party then fails to obey the order compelling a 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 this sanction, the court may impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010).

     (Civ. Proc. Code, § 2031.300.)          

            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.)

            The Court will give Defendant Michaela Chang an opportunity to serve responses to requests for production of documents before the Court imposes terminating sanctions. In this regard, the hearing on the motion for terminating sanctions is CONTINUED to January 13, 2022 at 8:30 a.m. If Defendant Chang has not provided responses to requests for production of documents by that date, the Court intends to impose terminating sanctions in the form of striking Defendant’s answer and entering her default.

            Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions against Defendant Michaela Chang is GRANTED in the reduced amount of $810 (1.5 hours at $500/hour, plus $60 filing fee—Medvei Decl., ¶ 8.) Sanctions are to be paid to Plaintiff’s counsel within 10 days.