Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles – West District  

Beverly Hills Courthouse / Department 200 

 

 

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiffs George C. Kopek, Toni Kopek, Richard S. Lee 

 

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendants Bagram Mardirossian, Susanna Mardirossian 

 

BACKGROUND 

This case involves a dispute over parking spaces.  Plaintiffs George C. Kopek, Toni Kopek and Richard Lee live in a condominium building in Pacific Palisades and claim ownership of two parking spaces, G114 and G116.  They contend Defendants Bagram and Susanna Mardirossian are illegally occupying the spaces.  They have also sued their homeowners association, Casa Gateway Homeowners Association (“Casa Gateway”), for failing to enforce bylaws and a Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&R’s).  Their complaint alleges claims for ejectment, preliminary injunction, trespass, nuisance, quiet title and enforcement of “governing documents”.  

This hearing is on Plaintiffs’ motion for issue, evidence and monetary sanctions.  Plaintiffs argue they are entitled to sanctions because Defendants have failed to comply with the Court’s December 12, 2022 order, compelling answers to the Kopeks’ first set of supplemental interrogatory and first set of supplemental demand for production and Lee’s first set of supplemental demand for production.  The discovery at issue asked Defendants to review all prior responses to form and special interrogatories and requests for production and to supplement or amend their responses based on any later acquired information.  (Exs. A-C to Lee Decl.)   

LEGAL STANDARD 

California discovery law authorizes a range of penalties for conduct amounting to “misuse of the discovery process.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030; Cedars-Sinai Medical Center v. Superior Court (1998) 18 Cal.4th 1, 12.)  As relevant here, misuses of the discovery process include “[f]ailing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010, subd. (d)), and “[d]isobeying a court order to provide discovery” (id., § 2023.010, subd. (g)).  Section 2023.030 authorizes a trial court to impose issue, evidence, terminating or monetary sanctions against “anyone engaging in conduct that is a misuse of the discovery process.” 

As to issue sanctions, subdivision (b) of Code of Civil Procedure § 2023.030 provides: “The 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.” 

As to evidence sanctions, subdivision (c) of Code of Civil Procedure § 2023.030 provides: “The court may impose an evidence sanction by an order prohibiting any party engaging in the misuse of the discovery process from introducing designated matters in evidence.” 

The trial court has broad discretion in selecting discovery sanctions, subject to reversal only for abuse. (Reedy v. Bussell (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 1272, 1293; Miranda v. 21st Century Ins. Co. (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 913, 928–929.)  The trial court should consider both the conduct being sanctioned and its effect on the party seeking discovery and, in choosing a sanction, should “‘attempt[] to tailor the sanction to the harm caused by the withheld discovery.’” (Do It Urself Moving & Storage, Inc. v. Brown, Leifer, Slatkin & Berns (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 27, 36.) 

The discovery statutes evince an incremental approach to discovery sanctions, starting with monetary sanctions and ending with the ultimate sanction of termination.  “Discovery sanctions ‘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.’” (Laguna Auto Body v. Farmers Ins. Exchange, 231 Cal.App.3d at p. 487.)  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.) 

DISCUSSION 

Plaintiffs’ motion is procedurally defective.  California Rule of Court 3.1345 provides that a motion for issue or evidence sanctions requires a separate statement.  Plaintiffs did not file a separate statement.  Notwithstanding, the Rules allow the Court to overlook this requirement when Plaintiffs file a concise outline of the discovery request and each response in dispute.  The Court concludes that Plaintiffs have done so here.   

The discovery at issue asked Defendants to review all prior responses to form and special interrogatories and requests for production and to supplement or amend their responses based on any later acquired information.  The Court previously compelled Defendants to provide responses without objections to the foregoing discovery requests.  Plaintiffs contend Defendants have failed to comply with this Court’s order and have provided no responses.    

 Defendants argue they have complied with the Order, but the January 3, 2023 email they point to in support refers to different discovery that is not the subject of the pending motion for sanctions.  The January 3, 2023 email refers to three discovery responses: (1) Response to Supplemental Interrogatory (set one) from Lee, (2) Response to Special Interrogatories (Set 2) from Plaintiffs, and (3) Response to Document Request (Set 4) from Plaintiffs.  The responses do not include the following three discovery requests that are the subject of the instant motion and this Court’s December 12, 2022 Order: (1) Supplemental Demand (Set One) for Production propounded by the Kopeks, (2) Supplemental Demand for Production (Set One) propounded by Lee, and (6) Supplemental Interrogatory (Set One) propounded by the Kopeks. 

Defendants also attempt to excuse their failure to respond to Supplemental Interrogatory (Set One) propounded by the Kopeks by stating they responded to a similar interrogatory propounded by Lee.  But the discovery was propounded separately by the Kopeks and Lee whose claims involve two distinct properties with different histories of ownership and where all discovery responses from Defendants are not identical to each Plaintiff group’s requests. 

As lesser sanctions have not curbed Defendants’ discovery abuses, the Court concludes that evidence sanctions are warranted here.  The Court prohibits Defendants from supplementing and introducing any additional and previously undisclosed evidence and testimony, and prohibits introduction of additional and previously undisclosed issues and contentions against the Kopeks.  The Court also prohibits Defendants from introducing any additional and previously undisclosed documents with respect to Lee.       

Section 2023.030 also authorizes a trial court to impose monetary sanctions against “anyone engaging in conduct that is a misuse of the discovery process.”  Misuses include include “[f]ailing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010, subd. (d)), and “[d]isobeying a court order to provide discovery” (id., § 2023.010, subd. (g)).  The Kopeks seek sanctions in the amount of $3,245.60 which represents 10.50 hours of work on the motion for sanctions at an hourly rate of $300.00 plus e-filing fees of $95.30.   

The Court concludes the hourly rate (of $300) is reasonable for Lee, an attorney with 40 years’ experience in the Southern California market who is a graduate of UC Berkeley law school.  Moreover, the hours spent are reasonable; the hours are broken down as follows: 4 hours for drafting and preparing the motion for sanctions, 5.5 hours for review of the opposition and preparing the reply, and one hour for preparation and attendance at the hearing.  The Court accordingly awards $3,245.30 to the Kopeks.    

The Kopeks also seek additional sanctions in the amount of $1,350 in connection with a motion for reconsideration that resulted in the Court’s December 12, 2022 order to compel.  The Court denies the sanctions in connection with the motion for reconsideration as the motion was necessitated by the Court’s error, not Defendants.   

CONCLUSION 

Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion for issue and evidence sanctions.  The Court also GRANTS the Kopeks’ motion for monetary sanctions.  Defendants are to pay $3,245.30 in monetary sanctions to the Kopeks within 30 days of this Order.   

 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 

DATED: March 16, 2023 ___________________________ 

Edward B. Moreton, Jr. 

Judge of the Superior Court