Judge Curtis A. Kin, Case 21STCV34458 2022-10-25 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Curtis A. Kin, Case: 21STCV34458, Date: 2022-10-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV34458 Hearing Date: October 25, 2022 Dept: 72

MOTION FOR SANCTIONS

Date: 10/25/22 (8:30 AM)

Case: Ai Agnes Sasaki v. AltaMed Foundation et al. (21STCV34458)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Ai Agnes Sasaki’s Motion for Sanctions is DENIED.

Plaintiff Ai Agnes Sasaki seeks $31,440 in sanctions against WFS HTS, Inc. (“WFS”), erroneously sued as Talent Strategies, Inc., and counsel of record in connection with motions to compel further responses heard on April 21, 2022, and August 11, 2022 (erroneously identified in the notice of motion as August 22, 2022).

On April 21, 2022, the Court heard plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses from WFS to General Form Interrogatory No. 4.1 and Employment Form Interrogatory No. 214.1, which concern details about WFS’ insurance policy. (Mitchell Decl. ¶ 2 & Ex. A.) WFS objected based on its election not to defend itself through insurance. The Court rejected this objection and granted plaintiff’s motion.

On August 11, 2022, the Court heard plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses from WFS to Document Request Nos. 1-3 concerning an Asset Purchase Agreement. (Mitchell Decl. ¶ 3 & Ex. B.) The Court found that the requested documents were relevant to plaintiff’s claims and granted the motion. In that same motion, plaintiff requested other discovery, which the Court denied. (8/11/22 Minute Order at 3-4.)

Plaintiff did not seek monetary sanctions for either motion. Plaintiff now seeks monetary sanctions after the fact.

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.) However, “[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.) This is due to concerns about “protecting the Discovery Act’s policy interest in speedy resolution of discovery disputes.” (Ibid.) “[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.)

The Court finds that plaintiff’s motion for sanctions is untimely under the circumstances. This motion was filed on September 29, 2022, approximately five months after the motion concerning the form interrogatories and one and a half months after the motion concerning the document requests.

With respect to the April 21, 2022 motion, this motion is untimely based on plaintiff’s five-month delay in seeking sanctions. In Karton v. Ari Design & Construction, Inc. (2021) 61 Cal.App.5th 734, the trial court concluded that posttrial motions for monetary sanctions arising from a discovery referee report issued five months earlier were stale and tardy. (Karton¸ 61 Cal.App.5th at 749-50.) The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s conclusion. (Id. at 750.) The same conclusion is warranted here.

With respect to the August 11, 2022 motion, the Court finds that plaintiff’s one and a half month delay in seeking monetary sanctions renders the motion untimely. In London, the party seeking discovery sanctions filed a noticed motion promptly after the hearing for the underlying discovery motion, where the trial court sustained the opposing party’s objection to the sanctions based on lack of notice. (London, 117 Cal.App.4th at 1002.)

With respect to both the April 21, 2022 and August 11, 2022 discovery disputes, the asserted basis for plaintiff’s request for sanctions is defendant’s purported lack of substantial justification in opposing the discovery requests—facts and circumstances fully known to plaintiff at the time plaintiff made the discovery motions. Waiting until now to request sanctions in connection therewith is untimely. (London, 117 Cal.App.4th at 1007 [recognizing basis for allowing separately filed request for sanctions is that “[c]ommon sense dictates sanctions cannot be pursued before the affected party finds out about the alleged discovery dereliction of his or her opponent”].)

Moreover, the Court notes the instant motion for sanctions was filed seven days after September 22, 2022, when the Court imposed $2,085 in monetary sanctions against plaintiff in connection with a motion to compel further responses filed by WFS. (Arshad Decl. ¶ 10.) The timing of this motion suggests retaliation for WFS’s seeking of sanctions. 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.)

The motion is DENIED.

With respect to WFS’s request for monetary sanctions, the Code of Civil Procedure provides for the imposition of monetary sanctions for a successful opposition to a motion to compel further response. (CCP §§ 2030.300(c), 2031.310(h).) There is no similar provision for a successful opposition to a motion for sanctions. Defendant WFS’s request for sanctions is DENIED.