Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 20STCV20720, Date: 2023-03-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV20720    Hearing Date: March 2, 2023    Dept: 28

Plaintiff Xenia Esquivel’s Motion for Sanctions

Having considered the moving, opposing and reply papers, the Court rules as follows. 

BACKGROUND

On June 2, 2020, Plaintiff Xenia Esquivel (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Ronald Pang (“Pang”) and Pacific Bell Telephone Company (“PBT”) for motor vehicle negligence.

On July 22, 2020, PBT filed an answer. On October 6, 2021, Pang filed an answer.

On January 4, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Sanctions to be heard on February 22, 2023. The Court continued the hearing on the motion to March 2, 2023. On February 7, 2023, Defendants filed an opposition. On February 14, 2023, Plaintiff filed a reply. Plaintiff filed an amended notice of motion on February 21, 2023, and an amended reply on February 27, 2023.

Trial is currently set for June 14, 2023

PARTY’S REQUESTS

Plaintiff requests sanctions totaling $3,210.00 against Defendants and evidentiary sanctions precluding Defendants from introducing any evidence regarding negligence, causation, damages or in support of any affirmative defenses pled in their answers.

Defendants request the Court deny the motion and grant sanctions totaling $2,250.00.

LEGAL STANDARD

Under CCP § 2023.030, “[t]he court may impose an issue sanction ordering that designated facts shall be taken as established in the action in accordance with the claim of the party adversely affected by the misuse of the discovery process. The court may also impose an issue sanction by an order prohibiting any party engaging in the misuse of the discovery process from supporting or opposing designated claims or defenses.” The Court may also impose evidence sanctions, “by an order prohibiting any party engaging in the misuse of the discovery process from introducing designated matters in evidence.” Either may be imposed against a party engaging in misuse of the discovery process.

Misuses of the discovery process include but are not limited to persisting in attempting to obtain information outside the scope of discovery, using a non-compliant discovery method, employing a discovery method to harass or embarrass, failing to respond to discovery, making meritless objections to discovery, giving evasive responses to discovery, disobeying a court order, and unsuccessfully making or opposing a motion to compel or limit discovery. CCP § 2023.010.

The Court may also impose monetary sanctions against one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process. (CCP § 2023.030(a).)

DISCUSSION

On December 14, 2022, Plaintiff served Defendants with Notie of Videotaped Depositions of Pang and PBT’s PMK for December 29 and 30, 2022. Defendants objected to the notices, claiming that because they admitted to liability, the depositions were irrelevant and not calculated to lead to the discovery of evidence. Plaintiff moved forward with the depositions and took notices of non-appearance.

The Court finds this motion for sanctions both unwarranted and premature, at this time. There is no indication Plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel Depositions prior to this motion, which would be the proper first step in involving the Court regarding deposition issues. Plaintiff immediately jumped to sanctions, including evidentiary sanctions that would eliminate Defendants’ ability to effectively represent themselves. In reviewing the Court’s docket, it appears that the Court has yet to rule on a motion regarding discovery; Plaintiff needs to go through the appropriate motion work prior to making such a request. The Court denies the motion.

Given that Plaintiff’s motion is untimely and unwarranted at this time, the Court will impose sanctions on Plaintiff. Defendants request $2,250.00 in sanctions based on 9 hours of attorney’s work at a rate of $250.00 per hour. 2 hours were spent meet and conferring, 5 hours were spent drafting the opposition, and 2 hours were spent preparing for the hearing. The Court awards $1,000.00 in sanctions, based on 4 hours of attorney’s work.

CONCLUSION

Plaintiff Xenia Esquivel’s Motion for Sanctions is DENIED.

Defendants Ronald Pang and Pacific Bell Telephone Company’s Request for Sanctions is GRANTED. Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel are ordered to pay Defendants $1,000.00 in sanctions within 30 days of the hearing on the motion.

            Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

Moving Party is ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.

The parties are directed to the header of this tentative ruling for further instructions.