Judge Donald F. Gaffney, Case Sickles v. Sturdivant 2022-10-26 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Donald F. Gaffney, Case: Sickles v. Sturdivant, Date: 2022-10-26 Tentative Ruling

TENTATIVE RULING:

Motion to Compel Production and for Sanctions

Plaintiff Kevin Van Sickles moves to compel from Defendant Microwave Packaging Technology, Inc., the production of documents responsive to RFPs (Set One), in compliance with this court’s 04/27/2022 order. Plaintiff also moves for the issuance of monetary, issue, and terminating sanctions. For the following reasons, the motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

Disobeying a court order to provide discovery constitutes a misuse of the discovery process. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010(g); Van Sickle v. Gilbert (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1495, 1516.) Imposition of sanctions for misuse of discovery lies within the trial court’s discretion. (Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 967, 991.) Once a party is ordered by the court to provide responses to discovery, continued failure to respond may result in the imposition of more severe sanctions. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300(c).)

Once the moving party shows the failure to obey the court’s earlier discovery orders, the burden of proof shifts to the party seeking to avoid sanctions to establish a satisfactory excuse for his or her conduct. (Corns v. Miller (1986) 181 Cal.App.3d 195, 201; Puritan Ins. Co. v. Super. Ct. (1985) 171 Cal.App.3d 877, 884.)

If a party fails to obey an order compelling answers to discovery, the court may impose whatever sanctions are just, including issue, evidentiary, terminating, and/or monetary sanctions. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030(a)-(d).) The trial court tailors the sanction for misconduct to “fit the crime.” (Reedy v. Bussell (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 1272, 1293.) The court cannot impose sanctions as punishment; the choice of sanctions should not give the moving party more than it would have gotten had the discovery been responded to. (Doppes, supra, 174 Cal.App.4th at p. 992; Caryl Richards, Inc. v. Super. Ct. (1961) 188 Cal.App.2d, 300, 303.) Before issuing terminating sanctions, the court should usually grant lesser sanctions such as orders staying the action until the derelict party complies, or orders declaring matters as admitted or established if answers are not received by a specified date, often accompanied with costs and fees to the moving party. (Doppes, supra, 174 Cal.App.4th at p. 992.) It is only when a party persists in disobeying the court’s orders that the ultimate sanctions of dismissing the action or entering default judgment, etc., are justified. (See Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771.)

On 04/27/2022, this court ordered Defendant Microwave Packaging Technology, Inc., (“MPT”) to respond without objection and produce documents in response to RFPs (Set One) Nos. 2, 3, 8-17, 20, 22, 24-27, 29-31, and 33-37. MPT was also ordered to pay sanctions in the amount of $3,060.

MPT provided responses to the RFPs, produced some of the responsive documents, and paid the monetary sanctions. (Jasper-Braley Decl. ¶¶ 6, 10.)

QuickBooks Data (RFP Nos. 36-37)

It is undisputed that MPT has documents responsive to RFP Nos. 36-37 in its possession, custody, or control. MPT has agreed to produce all QuickBooks data pursuant to a stipulated protective order.

Credit Card Account Statements (RFP No. 25).

Plaintiff contends that credit card statements related to the following accounts have not been produced: (1) Account x7447/5056, 07/2017 – 12/2019; and (2) Account x7296, 07/2017 – 11/2017. Defendant MPT contends it has produced all available statements.

MPT fails to show it has complied with its discovery obligations to make a diligent search and reasonable inquiry for statements related to these accounts. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.230.) MPT’s own evidence shows that MPT personnel received a fax number and address to send in a request for records related to Account x7447/5056, but there is no evidence that MPT made that request. (Sturdivant Decl., Ex. A.) Similarly, MPT’s evidence shows that any request for statements prior to 12/2017 on account x7296 must be requested through Elan Financial Services, but there is no evidence that MPT made that request. (Sturdivant Decl., Ex. B.)

Defendant MPT shall produce all documents responsive to RFP Nos. 36-37 no later than five (5) court days after notice of the issuance of the parties’ stipulated protective order.

No later than 20 days after service of the notice of ruling, Defendant MPT shall produce all credit card statements related to Account numbers x7447/5056 and x7296, or if Defendant MPT claims inability to comply, a declaration in substantial compliance with the obligations set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.230.

Plaintiff’s request for issue sanctions, terminating sanctions, and/or an order staying all further proceedings and discovery pending compliance with the court’s order is denied.

Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions against Defendant MPT is granted. (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2023.030(a), 2031.320(b).) Defendant MPT is ordered to pay sanctions in the amount of $3,960 to Hartnett Law Group within 20 days of the service of the notice of ruling.

Plaintiff to give notice.