Judge: Christopher K. Lui, Case: 22STCV36779, Date: 2024-11-13 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV36779 Hearing Date: November 13, 2024 Dept: 76
The following
tentative ruling is issued pursuant to Rule of Court 3.1308 at 12:39 p.m. on November 12, 2024.
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 November 12, 2024.
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, oral argument will not
be permitted.
This is a revival action pursuant to Civ. Proc. Code, § 340.1, alleging Plaintiff was sexually abused and assaulted by Defendants’ employee while Plaintiff was a student at school..
Plaintiff Jimmy Watson moves for terminating sanctions or, in the alternative, Issue, evidence and monetary sanctions and jury instructions.
TENTATIVE RULING
Plaintiff
Jimmy Watson’s motion for terminating sanctions in the form of a default
judgment as to liability is DENIED.
Plaintiff’s request for issue and evidentiary sanctions is DENIED. However, the Court will impose a lesser evidentiary sanction in the form of an order prohibiting Defendant from challenging the authenticity of the documents which Plaintiff discovered at the UCLA library, provided Plaintiff demonstrates that the documents presented are the same documents discovered at the UCLA library.
Plaintiff’ request for a jury instruction is GRANTED IN PART, as modified by the Court.
Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions is DENIED.
ANALYSIS
Motion For Terminating, Issue, Evidentiary, Monetary Sanctions and/or Jury Instructions
Plaintiff Jimmy Watson moves for terminating sanctions or, in the alternative, Issue, evidence and monetary sanctions and jury instructions.
The basis for this motion is that Defendants: (1) Defendant intentionally destroyed the perpetrator’s personnel file in 2005, after perpetrator had been convicted of sexually assaulting students on 97th Street Elementary School’s campus; (2) Defendant secreted responsive documents from perpetrator’s personnel file by not producing them in discovery responses; (3) Defendant knew that it had donated over a hundred years of documents to UCLA but did not identify such documents in discovery responses, and Plaintiff’s counsel stumbled upon the collection by accident and located a huge warehouse of banker’s boxes of District records, including responsive policies in this case.
Plaintiff argues that the above discovery abuses justify the imposition of terminating sanctions in the form of default judgment as to liability.
In the alternative, Plaintiff requests issue and evidentiary sanctions establishing that: (1) that Don Ray Moore’s personnel file had information proving that Los Angeles Unified School District and 97th Steet Elementary School were aware of Don Ray Moore’s propensity to abuse children prior to Plaintiff being abused by Perpetrator, (2) that Perpetrator’s personnel file had information that proves that mandatory reporters employed by Los Angeles Unified had observed physical injuries on students caused by Perpetrator before Plaintiff was abused, and (3) that Los Angeles Unified School District intentionally destroyed Don Ray Moore’s personnel file despite knowing that it was relevant for future litigations. Further, Plaintiff asks the court to impose evidentiary sanctions barring Defendant from bringing forth evidence attempting to prove: (1) that 97th Street Elementary School and Los Angeles Unified School District had no notice that Don Ray Moore had a propensity to abuse children and posed a danger to Plaintiff, or (2) that employees at Los Angeles Unified School district did not have information about observable physical injuries inflicted by Don Ray Moore on students triggering their mandatory duty to report under California Penal Code §11161.5.
Plaintiff
requests the following jury instruction during the trial:
“If you find that Los Angeles Unified School District willfully and intentionally destroyed Don Ray Moore’s personnel file. You may assume that Don Ray Moore’s personnel file included documents proving that Los Angeles Unified School District knew about Don Ray Moore’s propensity to abuse children before Plaintiff was sexually abused by Don Ray Moore. You may also assume that Don Ray Moore’s personnel file included documents proving that mandatory reporters employed by Defendant had observed physical injuries inflicted by Perpetrator that would have triggered their duty to report Don Ray Moore to the proper authorities before Plaintiff was abused by Mr. Moore.”
Plaintiff also requests monetary sanctions in the amount of $104,475.00 for time spent sorting through documents to determine what is relevant for this litigation.
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.)
Plaintiff does not cite to any discovery order which Defendant disobeyed. In this regard, there is no basis to impose terminating sanctions upon Defendant for destroying the personnel file in 2005—long before this case was even filed in 2022. In this regard, default judgment as to liability is not warranted and would give Plaintiff a windfall. The request for terminating sanctions is DENIED. However, the jury can draw an inference from the timing of the destruction of the personnel file that there was evidence contained therein that the District wanted to destroy to avoid liability.
In this
regard, the request for a jury instruction is GRANTED IN PART, as modified by
the Court below:
“If you find that Los Angeles Unified
School District willfully and intentionally destroyed Don Ray Moore’s personnel
file, you may assume infer that Don Ray Moore’s personnel file included
documents proving that Los Angeles Unified School District knew about Don Ray
Moore’s propensity to abuse children before Plaintiff was sexually abused by
Don Ray Moore. You may also assume infer that Don Ray Moore’s personnel
file included documents proving that mandatory reporters employed by Defendant
had observed physical injuries inflicted by Perpetrator that would have
triggered their duty to report Don Ray Moore to the proper authorities before
Plaintiff was abused by Mr. Moore.”
The Court
also finds that Plaintiff’s requested issue and evidentiary sanctions are not
warranted, because Plaintiff has not demonstrated that Defendant disobeyed a
Court order and, although Defendant did not disclose the documents donated to
the UCLA library, Plaintiff was able to locate those documents. Plaintiff may
now attempt to prove his case with those documents. Plaintiff’s request for
issue and evidentiary sanctions is DENIED.
However, because Defendant did not disclose the existence of the documents donated to UCLA, it appears that Defendant did not provide accurate, code-compliant responses to document demands propounded by Plaintiff. As such, the Court will impose a lesser evidentiary sanction in the form of an order prohibiting Defendant from challenging the authenticity of the documents which Plaintiff discovered at the UCLA library, provided Plaintiff demonstrates that the documents presented are the same documents discovered at the UCLA library.
As for monetary sanctions, Plaintiff would have to bear the cost of sorting through documents had they been produced. Moreover, in the notice of motion, Plaintiff did not identify the persons and/or attorneys against whom the monetary sanction would be, and did not identify the amount.
Civ.
Proc. Code, § 2023.040 provides:
A request for a sanction shall, in the notice of motion, identify every person, party, and attorney against whom the sanction is sought, and specify the type of sanction sought. The notice of motion shall be supported by a memorandum of points and authorities, and accompanied by a declaration setting forth facts supporting the amount of any monetary sanction sought.
(Civ. Proc. Code, § 2023.040.)
As such,
Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions is DENIED.