Judge: Christopher K. Lui, Case: 23STCV28443, Date: 2025-03-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV28443    Hearing Date: March 11, 2025    Dept: 76

            Plaintiff sues Defendants for failure to bring the subject vehicle into compliance with applicable warranties.

            Defendant moves for terminating sanctions or, in the alternative, evidence or issue sanctions, and monetary sanctions against Plaintiffs.

TENTATIVE RULING

The hearing on Defendant Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc.’s motion for terminating, evidentiary and/or issue sanctions is CONTINUED to April 11, 2025 at 8:30 a.m. If Plaintiffs have not appeared for their deposition by that date, the Court will grant the motion for terminating sanctions.

            Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions against Plaintiffs Roberto Vizcarra and Claudia Pacora is GRANTED in the reduced amount of $2,000, jointly and severally. Sanctions are to be paid to Defendant’s counsel within 20 days.

            Defendant is to give Plaintiffs notice of this order.

ANALYSIS

Motion For Terminating, Evidentiary or Issue Sanctions

Discussion          

            Defendant moves for terminating sanctions or, in the alternative, evidence or issue sanctions, and monetary sanctions against Plaintiffs for violating this Court’s discovery order of August 22, 2024, which required plaintiffs to appear for their depositions within 30 days and pay monetary sanctions.

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.)

            Here, Defendant presents the following in support of its motion:

            On the morning of March 27, 2024, Plaintiff’s counsel’s office emailed that Plaintiff would not be appearing for their agreed-upon deposition date due to unspecified circumstances. Certificates of non-appearance were taken for both Plaintiffs. (Exhs. F, G.)

            On March 27, 2024, defense counsel emailed plaintiffs’ counsel four more proposed dates for plaintiffs’ depositions. Plaintiffs’ counsel did not respond. Then on April 4, 2024, defense counsel followed up again and proposed six more dates for the depositions of plaintiffs. Plaintiffs’ counsel did not confirm any of those dates. (See Exhibit “H” – Email Communications with Plaintiffs’ Counsel.) 

            Accordingly, on April 16, 2024, Defendant filed the motion to compel Plaintiffs’ depositions, set for a May 21, 2024 hearing. On May 9, 2024, Plaintiff’s then-counsel filed a motion o be relieved as counsel. Both motions were heard on June 7, 2024. On June 7, 2024, the court granted plaintiffs’ counsel’s motion seeking relief as counsel and reset TMS’ motion to compel for July 29, 2024. (See Exhibit “J” – Court’s Minute Order.) On July 29, 2024, the Court again continued Defendant’s motion to compel and ordered Defendant to give pro per plaintiffs notice of the motion to compel, which was set for August 22, 2024. On July 30, 2024, Defendant mailed notice to both plaintiffs including the motion to compel, to plaintiffs last known address. (See Exhibit “K” – TMS’ Amended Notices of Defendant’s Motion to compel, Portion of Exhibit A and Proof of Service.)

            On August 22, 2024, the court ruled on Defendant’s motion to compel the depositions of plaintiffs and request for monetary sanctions. Plaintiffs did not appear for the hearing and the court ordered that their depositions take place within 30 days, granted $2,000 in sanctions against both plaintiffs and ordered Defendant to give notice. On August 23, 2024, Defendant mailed notices of depositions to each plaintiff, to their last known address, setting the depositions for September 10, 2024. Defendant also mailed a letter to meet and confer regarding the deposition date. (See Exhibit “L” – TMS’ Deposition Notices to Plaintiffs and Meet and Confer Correspondence.)  

            On August 29, 2024, Defendant mailed plaintiffs a notice of ruling and the minute order regarding the Court’s August 22, 2024, ruling. (See Exhibit “M” – TMS’ Notice of Ruling on Defendant’s Motion to Compel and Court’s Minute Order.)  Plaintiffs did not contact defense counsel prior to the September 10, 2024, deposition date and did not appear for the noticed depositions. For a second noticed date, certificates of non-appearance were taken for both Plaintiffs. (See Exhibit “N” – Certificates of Non-Appearance.)   To date, plaintiffs still have not contacted defense counsel. As such, they are in dereliction of their discovery obligations and are in violation of the August 22, 2024, court order.

            Given the foregoing, as represented by Defendant, the Court intends to impose the requested terminating sanctions, but, because the trial date has been vacated, the Court will give Plaintiffs one more opportunity to appear for their deposition. The hearing on the motion for terminating sanctions is CONTINUED to April 11, 2025 at 8:30 a.m. If Plaintiffs have not appeared for their deposition by that date, the Court will grant the motion for terminating sanctions.

            Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions against Plaintiffs Roberto Vizcarra and Claudia Pacora is GRANTED in the reduced amount of $2,000, jointly and severally. (See Declaration of Danny F. Sandoval.) Sanctions are to be paid to Defendant’s counsel within 20 days.

            Defendant is to give Plaintiffs notice of this order.