Judge: Christopher K. Lui, Case: 23STCV08916, Date: 2025-02-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV08916    Hearing Date: February 27, 2025    Dept: 76

            Plaintiff alleges that she was subjected to racial harassment and discrimination, to the extent that she was forced to resign.

            Following this Court’s order compelling further responses to interrogatories, Plaintiff brings a noticed motion for sanctions against Defendants Nexstar Media, Inc. and Jason Ball.

TENTATIVE RULING

            Plaintiff Janet Hill’s motion for sanctions against Defendants Nexstar Media, Inc. and Jason Ball is GRANTED in the reduced total amount of $7,800, allocated $3,900 against Defendant Nexstar Media, Inc. and $3,900 against Defendant Jason Ball.

            Sanctions are to be paid to Plaintiff’s counsel within 20 days.

ANALYSIS

Motion For Sanctions

Request For Judicial Notice

            Defendant Nexstar Media, Inc.’s request that the Court take judicial notice of the Complaint filed in this action is GRANTED per Evid. Code, § 452(d)(court records).

Defendant’s Evid. Objections

            Declaration of Rachel P. Baldino

No. 1: SUSTAINED. Lack of personal knowledge.

No. 2: OVERRULED. Document is attached to the Declaration.

No. 3: OVERRULED. Permissible argument by counsel.

No. 4: OVERRULED. Document is attached to the Declaration.

Discussion

            On December 6, 2024, the Court issued a ruling granting Plaintiff’s motions to compel further responses as against Defendants Jason Ball and Nexstar Media. The Court also states:

Plaintiff’s notices of motion did not contain requests for monetary sanctions, and thus the Court does not impose sanctions on either Defendant as part of this ruling. If Plaintiff wishes to pursue sanctions, Plaintiff may bring a separate motion pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 2023.010 and 2023.040. (See City of Los Angeles v.

PriceWaterhouseCoopers, LLP (2024) 17 Cal.5th 46.)

     (December 6, 2024 Minute Order, Page 1 of 9 [bold emphasis added].)           

Following this Court’s order compelling further responses to interrogatories, Plaintiff brings a noticed motion for sanctions against Defendants Nexstar Media, Inc. and Jason Ball pursuant to Civ. Proc. Code, § 2023.010, 2023.030 and 2030.300. 

Civ. Proc. Code, § 2023.010 defines misuses of the discovery process, and § 2023.030 specifies the type of sanctions that may be imposed for a misuse of the discovery process. On the other hand, § 2030.300 is specific to the motion to compel further responses to interrogatories:

(d) The court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a further response to interrogatories, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.

(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(d) & (e)[bold emphasis added].)

            Even PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP, supra, suggested that resort to § 2023.030 is not necessary where the type of discovery abuse is already addressed by a relevant sanctions provision:

The straightforward answer to the City's worry, however, is that a court's authority to impose sanctions under section 2023.030 is not limitless. It is already well established that a court may not rely on section 2023.030 to override the limitations prescribed by any other applicable sanctions provision in the Act. A court may invoke its independent authority to impose sanctions under sections 2023.010 and 2023.030 only when confronted with an unusual form of discovery abuse, or a pattern of abuse, not already addressed by a relevant sanctions provision. And where it invokes that [*75]  authority, it is constrained by the long-settled rules generally governing the imposition of discovery sanctions under the Act.

(City of Los Angeles v. PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP (2024) 17 Cal.5th 46, 74-75 [bold emphasis and underlining added].)

            Here, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to interrogatories as against Defendants Nexstar Media and Jason Ball. The Court noted that as initially filed, this motion was directed at Defendant Jason Ball’s responses to General Form Interrogatories No. 2.1, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 2.7, 2.11, 2.12, 2.13, 12.1, 12.4, 12.5, 12.6, and 12.7. At the time of the hearing, the parties had partially resolved the issues, and the remaining disputes involve form interrogatories 12.4, 12.6, and 15.1. The Court ordered further responses to form interrogatories 12.4, 12.6, and 15.1. The Court also noted that as initially filed, this motion was directed at Defendant Nexstar Media’s responses to Form Interrogatories No. 3.1, 3.6, 3.7, 12.1, 12.4, 12.5, 12.6, 200.3, 200.4, 201.1, 201.2, 201.7, and 209.2. At the time of the hearing, the parties had partially resolved the issues, and the remaining disputes involve form interrogatories 201.7 and 209.2. The Court ordered further responses to form interrogatories 201.7 and 209.2.

            Because Defendants unsuccessfully opposed the motions to compel further responses, sanctions are mandated by Civ. Proc. Code, § 2030.300(d), unless the Court finds that Defendants acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.

            In granting the motions to compel further responses, the Court expressly found that Defendants’ opposition to the motions was without any justification. (December 6, 2024 Minute Order, Page 2 of 9.) For the reasons set forth in the Court’s December 6, 2024 ruling, the Court reiterates that Defendants did not present substantial justification for their opposition.

            As for whether other circumstances make the imposition of sanctions unjust, the Court has considered the parties papers submitted in connection with this motion and finds that no such circumstance exist. The Court also finds that apportionment is not required for interrogatories which became moot after the motions were filed as a result of the meet and confer process.

            The Court finds that the reasonable amount of attorney’s fees incurred in connection with bringing the motions to compel further responses to interrogatories, and the instant motion, is 12 total hours at $650/hour (Declaration of Rachel P. Baldino, ¶ 15) for a total of $7,800, allocated $3,900 against Defendant Nexstar Media, Inc. and $3,900 against Defendant Jason Ball. The motion for sanctions is GRANTED accordingly.

            Sanctions are to be paid to Plaintiff’s counsel within 20 days.