Judge: Daniel S. Murphy, Case: 23STCV00186, Date: 2024-01-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV00186    Hearing Date: January 10, 2024    Dept: 32

BACKGROUND

            This action was initiated on January 3, 2022 by thirty-four individual Plaintiffs seeking injunctive relief and damages for allegedly uninhabitable conditions in rental units maintained by Defendants. The Defendants each allegedly owned or managed the property at various times throughout Plaintiffs’ tenancy. The operative Third Amended Complaint was filed on June 7, 2023. The action now involves sixty-one Plaintiffs.

            On November 27, 2023, Plaintiffs filed the instant motion for sanctions against Defendant Mashcole Property Management, Inc. based on Defendant’s failure to properly respond to discovery after a court order. Defendant filed its opposition on December 27, 2023. Plaintiffs filed their reply on January 2, 2023.

LEGAL STANDARD

The discovery statutes evince an incremental approach to discovery sanctions, starting with monetary sanctions and ending with the ultimate sanction of termination. If a lesser sanction fails to curb misuse, a greater sanction is warranted: continuing misuses of the discovery process warrant incrementally harsher sanctions until the sanction is reached that will curb the abuse. (Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 967, 992.) “The penalty should be appropriate to the dereliction, and should not exceed that which is required to protect the interests of the party entitled to but denied discovery.” (Wilson v. Jefferson (1985) 163 Cal.App.3d 952, 959.)

DISCUSSION

            On March 29, 2023, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ motions to compel further responses to interrogatories and requests for production. The Court ordered supplemental responses within 10 days and sanctioned Defendant. Defendant did not produce further responses within 10 days. (Smith Decl. ¶ 7.) Plaintiffs granted an extension to the end of October 2023, after which Defendant still failed to produce responses. (Id., ¶¶ 9-10.) Defendant served supplemental responses on December 27, 2023, after this motion was filed. (Day Decl. ¶ 3.)

            Plaintiffs seek monetary, issue, and evidence sanctions. Plaintiffs request the Court to deem certain allegations from the complaint as established. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030(b).) These allegations would establish that Defendant Mashcole was responsible for maintaining the premises in a habitable condition but failed to do so. (Compl. ¶¶ 75, 82, 93-99.) Plaintiffs further seek to preclude Defendant from introducing the following evidence: (i) evidence supporting any denial of a material allegation or any special or affirmative defense; (ii) evidence showing that the property defects were caused by any person or entity other than Defendant; (iii) evidence showing that Defendant incurred expenses in remediating the defects; and (iv) evidence showing that Defendant obtained permits to complete repairs or modifications to the property.  

            Plaintiffs request issue and evidentiary sanctions that would essentially preclude Defendant from contesting liability, which is tantamount to a terminating sanction. To preclude Defendant from supporting any denial or defense asserted in its answer would be equivalent to striking the answer. As Plaintiffs themselves acknowledge, a terminating sanction is disproportionate at this stage. (See Mtn. at p. 2, fn. 1.) Plaintiffs’ reply does not respond to Defendant’s argument that the requested issue and evidence sanctions are not tailored to the discovery being deprived. (See Opp. 4:24-7:20.) Additionally, this is the first instance of Defendant failing to abide by a court order. For these reasons, the Court declines to impose issue or evidentiary sanctions at this stage.

            However, monetary sanctions are warranted. Defendant did not serve the ordered supplemental responses until December 27, 2023, the same day as its opposition to this motion. In other words, Plaintiffs had to file this motion in order to induce Defendant to finally serve the responses. No justification is provided for why Defendant did not produce the supplemental responses within 10 days as the Court ordered, or even by the extension Plaintiffs granted. The reasonable amount is $1,660, representing 4 hours at $400 per hour, plus a $60 filing fee.   

CONCLUSION

            Plaintiffs’ motion for sanctions is GRANTED as to monetary sanctions only. The Court sanctions Defendant Mashcole Property Management, Inc. and its counsel in the total amount of $1,660, to be paid within 30 days.