Judge: Frank M. Tavelman, Case: 22BBCV00421, Date: 2022-10-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22BBCV00421    Hearing Date: October 11, 2022    Dept: A

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

NORTH CENTRAL DISTRICT - BURBANK

DEPARTMENT A

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE IN RE: SANCTIONS DETERMINATION

MP:     11 NoHo Owner, LLC

RP:      Farmers Insurance (Non-Party)

HISTORY:

RP failed to timely respond to non-party discovery request causing MP to bring a motion to compel.   Court granted the motion to compel and awarded sanctions.  RP objected arguing that insufficient notice was provided, or in the alternative a reduction in the sanctions.  RP filed declarations explaining the administrative oversight and no attempt to be obstreperous in the discovery process.

DISCUSSION:

CCP 2023.010 sets forth a variety of discovery violations, including the failure to respond to an authorized discovery request.  CCP 2023.010(d).  If a monetary sanction is authorized, the Court shall impose that sanction, unless the Court finds the sanctioned party acted with “substantial justification” or the sanction in “unjust.”  CCP 2023.030.  The Court has the discretion to reduce the amount of fees and costs requested to reach a reasonable award.  Cornerstone Realty Advisors LLC v. Summit Healthcare REIT, Inc. (2020) 6 Cal App 5^th 790-791.  A request for sanctions shall, in the notice, identify every party against whom the sanction is brought, and the type of sanction requested.  CCP 2023.040.

In this instance, based upon the declarations received by the Court, and oral representations made at the last court appearance, the sanctioned party received the request but in interacting with the lawyer’s client, received the wrong file.  When the error was discovered, counsel did not contact the MP to advise them of the issue, nor to request an extension.   MP represented that they attempted to contact RP but did not receive a response.   It appears that this was an administrative error in the operations of RP’s office.   RP contacted MP once the response was sent to request that the motion to compel be taken off calendar; however, that was only after the motion was filed and the expense was incurred by the client.

The Court previously tentatively awarded a sizable sanctions award to which RP objected.  Upon further review of CCP §2023.040, it appears that MP failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of this section.  The Court reviewed the code sections referenced in MP’s notice, CCP §2020.010, et seq. CCP §§ 2020.410 and 2025.480 to determine if notice would have been provided by simply cross referencing those sections.   The Court does not believe those section provided adequate notice.   In MP’s motion, the request for sanctions is pursuant to CCP §2031.310(h), a section not referenced in the Notice of Motion.  As such, the Court does not believe that it may award the sanctions.

The motion to compel previously granted remains unchanged; however, the sanctions award is vacated due to the omission of sufficient notice pursuant to CCP §2023.040.  Had notice been proper, the Court would likely have modified its sanctions award to a lower dollar amount; however, that determination is now moot.

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

The Order to Show Cause Re: Sanctions Determination came on regularly for hearing on October 11, 2022, 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:

IT IS SO ORDERED.

THE PREVIOUS MOTION TO COMPEL REMAINS, THE SANCTIONS AWARDED ARE VACATED PURSUANT TO CCP §2023.040.

DATE:                                                               _______________________________

                                                                        F.M. TAVELMAN, Judge

                                                                        Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles