Judge: Curtis A. Kin, Case: 21STCV19888, Date: 2023-03-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV19888    Hearing Date: March 14, 2023    Dept: 72

MOTION FOR DISCOVERY MONETARY SANCTIONS

Date:               3/14/23 (8:30 AM)

Case:               Ana Bertha Campos v. Natalia Granados (21STCV19888)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant Natalia Granados’ Motion for Discovery Monetary Sanctions is DENIED.

Defendant Natalia Granados seeks $1,980 in monetary sanctions against plaintiff Ana Bertha Campos and counsel of record in connection with a motion to compel further response heard nearly six months ago on September 15, 2022.

On September 15, 2022, the Court denied plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One, Nos. 12, 15, and 19. The Court did not award monetary sanctions to defendant because “defendant did not request any suggested amount of sanctions or any evidence from which to calculate an appropriate amount of sanctions.” (9/15/22 Minute Order.)

Defendant attempts to remedy this defect with the instant motion. (See generally Bailey Decl.) However, defendant’s entitlement to sanctions, or specifically the lack thereof, was decided on September 15, 2022. “The name of a motion is not controlling, and, regardless of the name, a motion asking the trial court to decide the same matter previously ruled on is a motion for reconsideration under Code of Civil Procedure section 1008.” (Powell v. County of Orange (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 1573, 1577.) Because defendant is asking the Court to decide whether she is entitled to monetary sanctions in connection with the motion heard on September 15, 2022, the same matter on which the Court ruled on September 15, 2022, the Court deems this motion a motion for reconsideration under CCP § 1008(a).

“When an application for an order has been made to a judge, or to a court, and refused in whole or in part, or granted, or granted conditionally, or on terms, any party affected by the order may, within 10 days after service upon the party of written notice of entry of the order and based upon new or different facts, circumstances, or law, make application to the same judge or court that made the order, to reconsider the matter and modify, amend, or revoke the prior order.” (CCP § 1008(a).) When a party requests reconsideration, the deadline set forth in CCP § 1008(a) is jurisdictional. (Morite of California v. Superior Court (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 485, 490; Kerns v. CSE Ins. Group (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 368, 391 [“[W]e hold that the procedural prerequisites set forth for reconsideration of orders and renewal of motions previously denied are jurisdictional as applied to the actions of parties to civil litigation.”].) 

Here, defendant’s request for monetary sanctions was denied on September 15, 2022. Defendant waived notice. (9/15/22 Minute Order; Code Civ. Proc., § 1019.5 [“When a motion is granted or denied, unless the court otherwise orders, notice of the court’s decision or order shall be given by the prevailing party to all other parties or their attorneys . . . unless notice is waived by all parties in open court and is entered in the minutes”].) Accordingly, defendant had 10 days from September 15, 2022, or September 26, 2022 (since September 25, 2022 was a Sunday) to file a motion for reconsideration. This motion was untimely filed on February 6, 2023.

Further, a party seeking reconsideration of a prior ruling must set forth what “new or different facts, circumstances, or law” justify reconsideration of the prior ruling, as also required to establish the Court’s jurisdiction to reconsider a prior ruling under CCP § 1008(a). (Gilberd v. AC Transit (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 1494, 1500.) A party moving for reconsideration “must provide a satisfactory explanation for the failure to produce the evidence at an earlier time.” (New York Times Co. v. Superior Court (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 206, 212.) Defendant does not attempt to explain why the evidence necessary to calculate an appropriate amount of sanctions was not presented in connection with the September 15, 2022 hearing.

Defendant cites case law holding that a motion for discovery monetary sanctions may be heard after the litigation of the underlying motion to compel further response. (London v. Dri-Honing Corp. (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 999, 1001.) London is inapposite because, in that case, the trial court never ruled on whether the prevailing party on a motion to compel further response was entitled to monetary sanctions until after a separate noticed motion requesting monetary sanctions was heard. (Id. at 1002 [“[T]he trial court refused to award sanctions absent a noticed motion conforming to the requirements of section 2023”].) Here, on September 15, 2022, the Court considered whether defendant was entitled to monetary sanctions and declined to award such sanctions due to failure to present evidence on how an award should be calculated. Accordingly, defendant had 10 days from September 15, 2022 to seek reconsideration of the denial of monetary sanctions. Defendant did not file the instant motion within those 10 days. Therefore, the Court lacks jurisdiction to reconsider the denial of monetary sanctions.

Separate and apart from the requirements of CCP § 1008(a) if the instant motion were deemed a motion for reconsideration, “[e]ven though a motion for monetary sanctions may be filed separately from a motion to compel further response…timeliness is still important.” (Id. at 1008.) “[W]hether a request for sanctions is untimely is subject to the trial court's discretion because it is a fact-specific analysis.” (Id. at 1009.) Here, defendant did not file this motion until approximately four and a half months after the September 15, 2022 hearing. This is in contrast to London, where the party seeking discovery sanctions filed the noticed motion promptly after the hearing for the underlying discovery motion. (London, 117 Cal.App.4th at 1002.)

Moreover, it is hard to overlook that this motion for sanctions was filed the day before February 7, 2023, when the Court heard plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to Form Interrogatories-General, Set Two. In connection with that motion, plaintiff sought monetary sanctions. (See 2/7/23 Minute Order at 6.) One might reasonably view the instant motion as having been filed this motion in retaliation for plaintiff’s seeking of sanctions in connection with the other motion. The purpose of discovery sanctions is to “prevent abuse of the discovery process and correct the problem presented,” not to provide a “weapon for punishment.” (Do v. Superior Court (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 1210, 1213.) Under these circumstances, even if the Court had jurisdiction to hear this motion, the Court in its discretion would find the motion untimely.

The motion is DENIED.