Judge Eddie C. Sturgeon, Case 37-2021-00037659-CU-BC-CTL 2023-09-21 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Eddie C. Sturgeon, Case: 37-2021-00037659-CU-BC-CTL, Date: 2023-09-21 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - September 20, 2023

09/21/2023 11:00:00 AM C-67 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Eddie C Sturgeon

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited Breach of Contract/Warranty Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2021-00037659-CU-BC-CTL ROJAS MARTINEZ VS C LAKE LLC [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion - Other, 08/21/2023

Plaintiffs Orquidea Rojas Martinez and Ricardo Ruiz's Motion to Disqualify or Remove the Judge is DENIED. Defendant's unopposed Motion for Terminating Sanctions is GRANTED. Monetary sanctions are denied, but the court reaffirms the $1,420 in sanctions awarded on July 14, 2023 at ROA 112.

Because these motions involve related issues, they are addressed together.

The court is authorized to impose terminating and monetary sanctions on parties who misuse the discovery process (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2023.030(a), (d)), including disobeying a court order to provide discovery (id., § 2023.010(f); see also Miranda v. 21st Century Ins. Co. (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 913, 928 ['Disobedience of a court order constitutes an abuse of discovery for which the court may dismiss the action']). Misuse of the discovery process may also include 'employing a discovery method in a manner or to an extent that causes unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression, or undue burden and expense,' 'failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery,' and 'making an evasive response to discovery.' (Id., §§ 2023.010(b), (c), (d), (f).) Terminating sanctions are appropriate where a party's discovery abuses and failures to follow court orders are repeated or willful. (See Miranda, supra, 117 Cal.App.4th at 928-929 ['Only two facts are absolutely prerequisite to imposition of the sanction: (1) there must be a failure to comply . . . and (2) the failure must be willful.'] [internal citation and quotation marks omitted]; see also Jerry's Shell v. Equilon Enterprises, LLC (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 1058, 1069 ['Repeated failure to respond to discovery and to comply with court orders compelling discovery provides ample grounds for imposition of the ultimate sanction.'].) In considering whether to terminate, the court notes that litigants, such as Plaintiffs, that are 'appearing in propria persona, . . . [are] entitled to the same, but no greater, consideration than other litigants and attorneys.' (Nelson v. Gaunt (1981) 125 Cal.App.3d 623, 638 [emphasis added].) The motion for terminating sanctions is based on Plaintiffs continued refusal to participate in discovery or abide by this court's orders. (ROAs 91, 112.) On March 3, 2023, in the first order granting Defendant's unopposed motions to compel discovery, the court denied any monetary sanctions and provided Plaintiffs with an additional 25 days to respond to the requests. Plaintiff Ruiz appeared at the hearing and because he stated that he was unsure what discovery was being requested, the court required Defendant to re-send the requests for discovery to Plaintiffs. (ROA 112.) Defendant complied, but Plaintiffs still did not respond and Defendant re-filed new motions to compel. On July 14, 2023, the court granted the new motions and imposed $1,420 in sanctions ($710 per motion).

Plaintiffs have concurrently moved to disqualify or remove this court under Code of Civil Procedure section 170.6. (ROA 117.) As an initial matter, a peremptory challenge under Section 170.6 is untimely Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

3012591 16 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE: ROJAS MARTINEZ VS C LAKE LLC [IMAGED] 37-2021-00037659-CU-BC-CTL as it was required 'within 15 days after notice of the all purpose assignment, or if the party has not yet appeared in the action, then within 15 days after the appearance.' (Code Civ. Proc., § 170.6(a)(2).) Construing the motion as a verified statement under Code of Civil Procedure section 170.3, it still fails as Plaintiffs have not shown that it was timely or that it was 'personally served on the judge alleged to be disqualified, or on [the] clerk[.]' (Code Civ. Proc., § 170.3(c)(3).) Moreover, there is no legal basis for disqualification or recusal in this case. (See id., § 170.1 [enumerating grounds for disqualification].) Unfavorable rulings against Plaintiffs do not provide a basis for disqualification or recusal. (See ROA 117, p. 2 ['since he started the case he has made decisions against us']; p. 4 ['he always makes decisions in favor of the lawyer for the opposing party'].) Even so, the court addresses the substance of Plaintiffs' papers in an attempt to explain why it will not recuse itself and why this lawsuit must now come to an end. Plaintiffs complain that the court is aiding violations of their civil rights by requiring the disclosure of their personal and confidential information. In prior papers (ROA 71), Plaintiffs have suggested that they just wish to proceed directly to trial, stating that 'we already have a court date and that nothing more needs to be done.' But that is not how civil litigation works. Parties to a civil lawsuit are required to respond to discovery requests, where they must answer questions (i.e., interrogatories) and respond to document requests from the opposing party.

Responding to written discovery does not necessarily mean that a party must turn over all documents or information that is requested. Parties are generally entitled to raise timely objections to requested information. For example, if any requested information was actually confidential, Plaintiffs in this case could have, but did not, respond that they would be willing to turn over such documents subject to a protective order. Civil discovery often requires the disclosure includes medical records where Plaintiffs have put their injuries at issue, such as they have in this case. Plaintiffs cannot expect to seek damages for injuries without disclosing information about those injuries to the other side prior to trial.

Moreover, much of the discovery propounded on Plaintiffs does not appear to implicate any confidential matters. For example, many of the form interrogatories propounded seek standard information regarding the lawsuit. (See ROA 124, Ex. 1.) The 15 special interrogatories propounded seek similarly standard information for a lawsuit of this nature such as witness details. (Ibid.) The court finds nothing unusual or invasive about these discovery requests.

Finally, Plaintiffs also raise issues related to criminal law (ROA 117 ['criminal matter'] and their own defense (ROA 71 [stating that Plaintiffs 'do not have the resources to pay a lawyer to defend us']). The court reminds Plaintiffs that this is a civil action that they filed, concerned with civil liability only.

Responding to discovery was Plaintiffs' obligation and a failure to do so, not once, but after two court orders underscores Plaintiffs' unwillingness to proceed in a manner consistent with law. The motion for terminating sanctions is granted.

Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

3012591 16