Judge Daniel M. Crowley, Case Number: 22STCV16300, Date: 2024-03-11 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff Damon Zielinski (“Zielinski”) (“Plaintiff”) moves for an order of sanctions against Defendant County of Los Angeles (“County”) (“Defendant”) and its attorneys of record, David Penner and Michele Goldsmith of BLG Law Group, in the amount of $3,860.00. (Notice of Motion, pgs. 1-2; C.C.P. §2030.030.) Plaintiff moves on the grounds that Defendant has failed to respond to discovery, made evasive responses as to discovery, and made false representations regarding the availability of discoverable information. (Notice of Motion, pg. 2.)

Defendant, in opposition, requests this Court issue sanctions against Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s attorneys of record Steven H. Haney, Kenneth W. Baisch, and George Hill, and Haney & Shah, LLP, in the amount of $4,600.00. (Notice of Opposition, pgs. 1-2; C.C.P. §2023.030.)

On May 17, 2022, Plaintiff filed this action against Defendant for discrimination; harassment; retaliation; failure to prevent discrimination, harassment, or retaliation due to Plaintiff’s veteran status; and violation of Labor Code §1102.5.

On July 5, 2023, this Court, pursuant to parties’ stipulation, ordered Defendant to produce its person most knowledgeable (“PMK”) for deposition on May 25, 2023, and removed from the Court’s calendar Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendant’s PMK’s attendance at deposition. (7/5/23 Stipulation.)

Plaintiff filed the instant motion on November 8, 2023. Defendant filed its opposition on February 27, 2024. Plaintiff filed his reply on March 4, 2024.

To the extent authorized by the chapter governing any particular discovery method or any other provision of this title, the court, after notice to any affected party, person, or attorney, and after opportunity for hearing, may impose the following sanctions against anyone engaging in conduct that is a misuse of the discovery process:

(a) The court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct. The court may also impose this sanction on one unsuccessfully asserting that another has engaged in the misuse of the discovery process, or on any attorney who advised that assertion, or on both. If a monetary sanction is authorized by any provision of this title, the court shall impose that sanction unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.

The Court of Appeal recently stated in City of Los Angeles v. PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLC that “the statutory language of section 2023.030 limiting sanctions ‘to the extent authorized’ by other provisions of the Discovery Act” was not sufficient to sustain an award of discovery sanctions because “no prior case law squarely held that section 2023.030 requires monetary sanctions to be authorized by another provision of the Discovery Act.” (City of Los Angeles v. PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLC (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 466, 505.) The PricewaterhouseCoopers Court reversed and remanded the lower court’s order granting discovery sanctions. (Id.)

While City of Los Angeles v. PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLC is pending review before the California Supreme Court, the case may be cited, not only for its persuasive value, but also for the limited purpose of establishing the existence of a conflict in authority that would in turn allow trial courts to exercise discretion under Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962) 57 Cal.2d 450, 456, to choose between sides of any such conflict. (City of Los Angeles v. PricewaterhouseCoopers (Cal. 2023) 303 Cal.Rptr.3d 669, 669.)

The Court finds the PricewaterhouseCoopers Court’s rationale to be persuasive and declines to award sanctions on the basis Plaintiff’s motion fails to provide an authority entitling him to the relief he seeks.

Accordingly, the Court declines to award sanctions on behalf of either Plaintiff or Defendant, as noticed in their opposition.

Hon. Daniel M. Crowley

Judge of the Superior Court