Judge: Frank M. Tavelman, Case: 20BBCV00397, Date: 2024-01-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20BBCV00397    Hearing Date: January 26, 2024    Dept: A

MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS
Los Angeles Superior Court Case # 20BBCV00397

 NOTICE: 

The Court is not requesting oral argument on this matter.  Pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1308(a)(1) notice of intent to appear is required.  Unless the Court directs argument in the Tentative Ruling, no argument will be permitted unless a “party notifies all other parties and the court by 4:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing of the party’s intention to appear and argue.  The tentative ruling will become the ruling of the court if no notice of intent to appear is received.”   

Notice may be given either by email at BurDeptA@LACourt.org or by telephone at (818) 260-8412. 

ALLEGATIONS: 

On June 24, 2020, Jessica Stein (“Plaintiff”) brought this action against SC26 III, LLC and Power Property Management, Inc. (collectively “Defendants”) alleging habitability issues with an apartment Plaintiff rented from Defendants. The Complaint contains six causes of action for: (1) Breach of Warranty of Habitability, (2) Breach of Quiet Enjoyment, (3) Violation of LARSO, (4) Violation of Business and Professions Code § 17200, (5) Negligent Maintenance of Premises, and (5) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress. 

Defendants now move for terminating sanctions, arguing that Plaintiff has willfully failed to comply with discovery requests at multiple junctures. The Court notes that Defendants have filed two separate motions to compel discovery responses which were granted on April 9, 2021 and July 7, 2023. Defendants state that production was eventually made with respect to the 2021 motion, but no responses have been received since the Court’s July 7, 2023 order. 

On January 19, 2024, Plaintiff filed a late opposition to the motion. It is within the Court’s discretion to consider documents which are untimely filed. (See CRC Rule 3.1300(d).) Given that the motion of terminating sanctions presents the possibility that Plaintiff’s case resolves without a determination on the merits, the Court elects to consider the late filed opposition and Defendants’ reply. However, the Court admonishes Plaintiff that all procedural rules must be strictly obeyed and any future late filing will not be considered. 

ANALYSIS:  

I.                LEGAL STANDARD  

Where a party fails to obey an order compelling answers to discovery, “the court may make those orders that are just, including the imposition of an issue sanction, an evidence sanction, or a terminating sanction.” (C.C.P., §§ 2030.290(c), 2023.010(c); R.S. Creative, Inc. v. Creative Cotton, Ltd. (1999) 75 Cal. App. 4th 486, 495.) Terminating sanctions are appropriate when a party persists in disobeying the court’s orders. (Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 795-796.) 

A terminating sanction is a “drastic measure which should be employed with caution.” (Deyo supra, 84 Cal. App. 3d at 793.) “A decision to order terminating sanctions should not be made lightly. But where a violation is willful, preceded by a history of abuse, and the evidence shows that less severe sanctions would not produce compliance with the discovery rules, the trial court is justified in imposing the ultimate sanction.” (Mileikowsky v. Tenet Healthsystem (2005) 128 Cal. App. 4th 262, 279-280.) While the court has discretion to impose terminating sanctions, these 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.” (Deyo supra, at 793.) “[A] court is empowered to apply the ultimate sanction against a litigant who persists in the outright refusal to comply with his discovery obligations.” (Id.) Discovery sanctions are not to be imposed for punishment, but instead are used to encourage fair disclosure of discovery to prevent unfairness resulting for the lack of information. (See Midwife v. Bernal (1988) 203 Cal. App. 3d 57, 64.) 

II.              MERITS 

Despite Plaintiff’s neglect of this case, the Court does not find Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the July 7, 2023 order warrants the drastic remedy of terminating sanctions.  The Court notes that, by Defendants’ own admission, Plaintiff provided discovery responses pursuant to the April 9, 2021 order on May 15, 2021. (Lebow Decl. ¶ 7.) Plaintiff also paid the sanctions ordered by the Court in July of 2021. (Id.) As such, the only outstanding discovery responses at the time this motion was filed are those noted in the July 7, 2023 order.  

“The trial court may order a terminating sanction for discovery abuse ‘after considering the totality of the circumstances: [the] conduct of the party to determine if the actions were willful; the detriment to the propounding party; and the number of formal and informal attempts to obtain the discovery.’” (Los Defensores, Inc. v. Gomez (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 377, 390, quoting Lang v. Hachman (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 1225, 1246.) 

In her opposition, Plaintiff states that discovery responses pursuant to the July 7, 2023 order were served upon Defendants on January 18, 2024. Plaintiff also states that the sanctions ordered by the Court were paid on the same date. The Court notes that while Plaintiff’s opposition refers to a declaration by her counsel, Bryan Castorina, no such declaration is attached. Further, the opposition does not attach the discovery responses as exhibits despite referencing them as such. 

The Court finds Defendants have not shown that Plaintiff’s failure to adhere to the Court’s order is willful rather than the result of neglect. The Court acknowledges that Plaintiff has now twice provided discovery responses past the deadline ascribed by an order of the Court. Regardless, Plaintiff’s untimely compliance is not, in and of itself, a showing of willful behavior. While Plaintiff has established a pattern of providing discovery well past the ascribed deadlines, Defendants have not offered any evidence that this failure is a willful effort to stymie litigation. 

Defendants are certainly entitled to receive responses to the discovery that has been propounded, and Plaintiff is subject to appropriate (and potentially escalating) sanctions for the failure to comply with his obligations under the Civil Discovery Act and court orders, but at this time the Court cannot make a determination that the Plaintiff’s failures to comply were willful. 

Further, Defendants’ motion makes no argument as to a detriment suffered which cannot be offset by less severe sanctions. Defendants argue at length in their reply that Plaintiff’s failure to provide a good faith explanation for the delay in responding to discovery supports the granting of terminating sanctions. While the Court agrees that lengthy refusals to respond to discovery certainly invite monetary and even evidentiary sanctions, the delay here is not sufficient to justify the radical measure of terminating sanctions. 

Accordingly, Defendants’ motion for terminating sanctions is DENIED. 

The only alternative sanction briefed by Defendants are monetary sanctions. The Court finds monetary sanctions would be appropriate to offset the cost of Defendants’ actions in attempting to obtain discovery. Both of the Court’s prior orders were accompanied by sanctions and both orders resulted in the eventual production of discovery responses. As such, the Court grants monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,125.00 

RULING:

In the event the parties submit on this tentative ruling, or a party requests a signed order or the court in its discretion elects to sign a formal order, the following form will be either electronically signed or signed in hard copy and entered into the court’s records.  

ORDER  

SC26 III, LLC and Power Property Management, Inc’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions came on regularly for hearing on January 26, 2024, with appearances/submissions as noted in the minute order for said hearing, and the court, being fully advised in the premises, did then and there rule as follows:  

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS IS DENIED. 

MONETARY SANCTIONS ARE GRANTED AGAINST PLAINTIFF IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,125.00. SANCTIONS ARE TO BE PAID TO PLAINTIFF WITHIN 30 DAYS. 

UNLESS ALL PARTIES WAIVE NOTICE, DEFENDANTS TO GIVE NOTICE.

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATE:  January 26, 2024                          _______________________________ 

                                                                        Yolanda Orozco, Judge 

Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles