Judge: Christopher K. Lui, Case: 21STCV40439, Date: 2023-01-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV40439    Hearing Date: January 13, 2023    Dept: 76

            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

Conditioned upon Plaintiff Immigrant Rights Defense Council, LLC providing proof of service regarding the notice of continuance of this hearing, if Defendant Michaela Chang does not present evidence at the hearing that she has served such responses, then Plaintiff’s motions for terminating sanctions are GRANTED. The Court will order Defendant Chang’s answer stricken, and entry of her default. Thereafter, Plaintiff may submit a default judgment package for a default prove up.

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, set one and form interrogatories, set one. (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(c).)           

            CCP § 20230.290 addresses the situation where a party fails to obey an order compelling a response to interrogatories:

If a party then fails to obey an order compelling 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).

(Civ. Proc. Code § 2030.290(c).) 

            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 continued the hearing on both of these motions to this date to give Defendant Michaela Chang an opportunity to serve responses to requests for production of documents, set one and form interrogatories, set one before the Court imposes terminating sanctions. The Court warned Defendant Chang that if she has not provided responses to requests for production, set one and form interrogatories, set one by this date, the Court intends to impose terminating sanctions in the form of striking Defendant’s answer and entering her default.

Conditioned upon Plaintiff providing proof of service regarding the notice of continuance of this hearing, if Defendant Michael Chang does not present evidence at the hearing that she has served such responses, then Plaintiff’s motions for terminating sanctions are GRANTED. The Court will order Defendant Chang’s answer stricken, and entry of her default. Thereafter, Plaintiff may submit a default judgment package for a default prove up.