Judge: Colin Leis, Case: 22STCV26248, Date: 2025-04-24 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV26248 Hearing Date: April 24, 2025 Dept: 74
Sparks v.
Gretsky
Defendant Wayne Gretzky’s Motion for
Terminating Sanctions against Steven Sparks
BACKGROUND
This
claim arose out of a fraud and negligent misrepresentation claim by plaintiff
Steven Sparks (Sparks) against defendant Wayne Gretsky (Gretsky). A
cross-complaint was filed by Wayne, Janet Gretzky (Janet), and Glara Gerzon for
using Wayne’s name and likeness without permission, conversion of investments
for personal use, and for the mismanagement of BuChew.
After
Sparks failed to provide discovery responses, comply with Court orders, or pay
monetary sanctions, Gretsky now moves for terminating sanctions against Sparks.
LEGAL STANDARD
The
court is authorized, after notice and an opportunity for hearing, to impose sanctions
against anyone engaging in conduct that is a misuse of the discovery process,
including monetary sanctions, issue sanctions, and evidence sanctions. (Code
Civ. Proc., §¿2023.030, subds. (a)-(e).)
Code of Civil Procedure, section 2023.010, subdivision (g) provides that
a misuse of the discovery process includes, but is not limited to,
“[d]isobeying a court order to provide discovery.” (Code Civ. Proc., §
2023.010, subds. (d), (f).)
“The
discovery statutes evince an incremental approach to discovery sanctions,
starting with monetary sanctions and ending with the ultimate sanction of
termination. [Citation.]” (Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc.¿(2009) 174
Cal.App.4th 967, 992; see J.W. v. Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New
York, Inc.¿(2018) 29 Cal.App.5th 1142, 1169.) If a lesser sanction fails to
curb misuse, a greater sanction is warranted. (Doppes, supra, 174
Cal.App.4th at p. 992.) “Discovery sanctions ‘should be appropriate to the dereliction
and should not exceed what is required to protect the interests of the party
entitled to but denied discovery.’” (Id.) The court should consider the
totality of the circumstances, including 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 discovery. (Lang v. Hochman
(2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 1225, 1246.)
Evidence
or issue sanctions may be imposed only after parties violated discovery orders
compelling further responses, except in exceptional circumstances, including
where there was sufficiently egregious misconduct regarding a failure to
respond to discovery, or a prior discovery order was futile. (New Albertsons, Inc. v. Superior Court (2008)
168 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1426.)
DISCUSSION
This action has been marred by years of discovery
disputes. On January 23, 2023, Gretzky
initially served Sparks with Requests for Production, Set One; Special
Interrogatories, Set One; Form Interrogatories, Set One; Requests for
Admission, Set One; and a deposition notice. (Hedrick Decl., ¶¶ 4, 6.) By April 2023, Sparks had not provided any
discovery responses. (Hedrick Decl., ¶
15.) Gretzky filed a Motion to Compel
which was made moot by Sparks’s production of documents. (Hedrick Decl., ¶ 16.) Gretzky characterizes these responses as “threadbare”
and alleges that Sparks’s counsel at the time, Wilfred Killian (Killian),
simply superimposed discovery responses from another case onto Sparks’s
response partially augmented after meeting and conferring with some supplemental
responses to the requests for production.
(Hendrick Decl., ¶¶ 16, 18.) Around
August 18, 2023, Sparks substituted in new counsel, Adam D.H. Grant
(Grant). Despite promising prompt
supplemental responses, Grant delayed providing responses for months before
finally provided supplemental responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One. (Hendrick
Decl., ¶¶ 22-25.) Finally, on November
8, 2023, Grant provided supplemental responses to Request for Production, Set
One. (Hendrick Decl., ¶ 27.) The supplemental document production included
66,190 documents. (Hendrick Decl., ¶
28.) Gretzky’s counsel states that these
constituted a “document dump” rather than the identification of over 60,000
responsive documents. (Hendrick Decl., ¶
30, 32.) Soon after providing these
responses, Grant filed a Motion to be Relieved.
(Hendrick Decl., ¶ 31.)
Sparks’s
current counsel, Finney Arnold, LLP (Finney) substituted in on January 22,
2024. (Hendrick Decl., ¶ 33.) Gretzky provided Finney about a month to
provide supplemental discovery responses, including multiple meet and confer
discussions. (Hendrick Decl., ¶¶
33-34.) When Sparks’s third attorney
failed to meet the agreed upon date for supplemental responses, Gretzky filed a
motion to compel further responses to Request for Production, Set One. It wasn’t until September 3, 2024, days after
the original scheduled date for the Motion to Compel Further, that Sparks
provided supplemental responses.
(Hendrick Decl., ¶ 37.) These
responses were not Code-compliant and were still subject to the same issues the
Motion to Compel Further sought to address.
(Hendrick Decl., ¶¶ 38, 40.) The
Court granted Gretzky’s Motion to Compel and ordered $9,000 in sanctions. (See Minute Order 09/18/2024.) Sparks has not paid the $9,000 in
sanctions. (Hendrick Decl., ¶ 43.) The Court ordered supplemental responses to
be provided by September 18, 2024, but Sparks failed to provide responses until
October 25, 2024. (Hendrick Decl., ¶ 47.) Sparks continued to supplement the responses
from November 22, 2024 to December 24, 2024.
(Hendrick Decl., ¶¶ 47-49.)
Gretzky states these responses still fail to comply with the Court
order. (Hendrick Decl., ¶ 49.)
Gretzky
identifies six issues where Sparks’s responses continue to fail to meet the
Court’s order: (1) the written responses fail to contain statements of
compliance, (2) the production of communication is not complete, (3) Sparks has
failed to identify which of the 66,190 documents propounded were responsive,
(4) Sparks has failed to fully respond to Request for Production No. 67, (5) Sparks
has failed to fully respond to Request for Production No. 79, and (6) Sparks
has not paid any of the $22,050.00 in sanctions owed for three discovery
motions.
Sparks
states generally that he has provided several sets of discovery responses and
supporting declarations since taking over the case. (Finney Decl., ¶ 6.) Additionally, Sparks and Finney provide
statements that Sparks’s previous attorneys mishandled the case, including
discovery. (Finney Decl., ¶ 2; Sparks
Decl., ¶¶ 2-9, 11, 12.) Despite Finney’s
statements regarding attempts to come into compliance, it remains that Sparks
was unable or unwilling to provide Code-compliant discovery responses to the
Request for Production for over a year. Similarly, instead of paying the sanctions
due, or timely seeking a motion for relief, Sparks waits until his Opposition
to Gretzky’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions to request relief from the
Court’s orders and monetary sanctions all the while trying to shift blame to
his prior attorneys. Sparks’s actions indicate
a willful failure to comply with his discovery obligations.
The
Court considers whether the actions were willful, the detriment to the
propounding party, and the number of formal and informal attempts to obtain
discovery when determining whether to issue terminating sanctions. The Court finds that the failure to comply was
willful. Indeed, rather than comply with the Court’s orders, Plaintiff’s opposition
seeks to be relieved from those orders. Also, the Court finds that Sparks’s three-year
failure to provide sufficient, Code-compliant discovery responses has
significantly thwarted Gretzky’s ability to prepare for the trial currently set
for August 2025 (a date to which the Court by the parties’ stipulation continued
the original January 2025 trial date largely due to Plaintiff’s inadequate
discovery responses). Additionally,
Gretzky has engaged in numerous good faith attempts to meet and confer with all
three attorneys, providing each with outstanding requests and attempting to
ensure compliance with the Court’s orders and Sparks’s discovery obligations
before seeking Court intervention.
Finally, monetary sanctions have been unsuccessful in ensuring compliance
with discovery obligations and issue/evidentiary sanctions would not be
effective in curbing misuse. Thus, the
Court grants Gretzky’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions.
Additionally,
Gretzky requests an additional $17,475.00 in monetary sanctions associated with
this motion. The Court finds these
sanctions reasonable.
CONCLUSION
The
Court grants Defendant’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions. The Court grants Defendant $17,475.00 in
sanctions.
Defendants
to give notice.