Judge: Gregory Keosian, Case: 22STCV19075, Date: 2023-10-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV19075    Hearing Date: March 26, 2024    Dept: 61

Plaintiff Sohel Sedghat’s Motion for Terminating, Issue, and Evidentiary Sanctions is DENIED. Defendant City of Los Angeles is directed to provide further responses to Requests for Production, Set One, Requests No. 3 and 6, specifically identifying the disposition of the documents sought under Code of Civil Procedure § 2031.230. No sanctions are awarded.

Defendant to give notice.

I.                MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS

The court may impose terminating sanctions, include an order striking pleadings, and order dismissing an action, or an order rendering judgment by default against a party, for conduct that is a misuse of the discovery process. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030.) This conduct include “[f]ailing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery,” and “[d]isobeying a court order to provide discovery.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010.)

Ultimate discovery sanctions are justified where there is a willful discovery order violation, a history of abuse, and evidence showing that less severe sanctions would not produce compliance with discovery rules.  (Van Sickle v. Gilbert (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1495, 1516.)  Dismissal is a drastic measure, and terminating sanctions should only be ordered when there has been previous noncompliance with a rule or order and it appears a less severe sanction would not be effective.  (Link v. Cater (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 1315, 1326.)  “[A] penalty as severe as dismissal or default is not authorized where noncompliance with discovery is caused by an inability to comply rather than willfulness or bad faith.”  (Brown v. Sup. Ct. (1986) 180 Cal.App.3d 701, 707.)

Plaintiff Sohel Sedghat (Plaintiff) moves to impose terminating, issue, and evidentiary sanctions against Defendant City of Los Angeles (Defendant) based on purported failures to comply with prior discovery orders of this court. Plaintiff identifies the following instances of non-compliance:

·       After being ordered to provide further responses to Requests for Production and Special Interrogatories on February 7, 2023, and further ordered to provide further responses to Requests No. 1, 3, 5, and 6, and Special Interrogatory No. 6 on June 2, 2023, Plaintiff contends that the responses to Requests No. 3 and 6, consisting of statements of inability to comply, are insufficient. (Motion at p. 3.) Plaintiff also argues that the response to Interrogatory No. 6, which responds to a query about the duration of Plaintiff’s detention by reference to bodycam videos, is non-responsive. (Motion at p. 4.)

·       Defendant was directed to provide further responses to Special Interrogatories No. 11 and 12 in an order dated November 1, 2023. Special Interrogatory No. 11 asked Defendant to identify the true and correct name of the witness known as Timothy Anderson, to which Defendant had denied all knowledge without making sufficient description of its efforts to obtain the information. Interrogatory No. 12 sought the basis for Defendant’s denial that Plaintiff had been harmed, to which Defendant responded only with objections. (See 11/1/23 Order.) Defendant has supplemented its response to Interrogatory No. 11 stating that there was no arrest or further inquiry into Anderson’s identity on the subject date, and that Defendant therefore believed his proffered name was accurate. (Motion Exh. E.) Defendant’s further response to Interrogatory No. 12 states that Defendant has no records or information to support its contention in relation to Plaintiff’s harm, and that discovery is ongoing. (Ibid.)

·       Plaintiff contends that Defendant has provided evasive responses to Special Interrogatories, Set Two, Nos. 2, 7, and 8, served upon Defendant on June 21, 2023. (Motion at p. 5; Exhs. F, G.) However, Plaintiff’s motion as to these interrogatories was denied on November 1, 2023.

·       Plaintiff finally argues that Defendant served an evasive statement of inability to comply on May 12, 2023, in response to Requests for Production, Set Three, No. 3, which sought the production of all instructions or memoranda of guidelines for officers about making incident reports. (Motion at p. 5; Exhs. H, I.)

Plaintiff is not entitled to the sanctions sought. Plaintiff’s motion does not address a persistent pattern of evasion that is not susceptible to lesser sanction, but rather presents insufficiently specific supplemental responses to discovery which were but a portion of discovery that was subject to prior orders to compel. Of all the responses identified, only Requests No. 3 and 6 from Requests for Production, Set One, warrant a further response. This is because although nominally consisting of statements of inability to comply under Code of Civil Procedure § 2031.230, Defendant does not “specify whether the inability to comply is because the particular item or category has never existed, has been destroyed, has been lost, misplaced, or stolen, or has never been, or is no longer, in the possession, custody, or control of the responding party,” but rather offers up all such options as potential reasons without further elaboration. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.230.) Defendant may not simply copy the statutory language in this manner, as the statute expressly requires it to “specify whether” any of the ensuing conditions occurred. Defendant is therefore ordered to provide a further response to Requests for Production, Set One, No. 3 and 6.

No further sanction or response is required. Defendant has made clear that it has no information in its possession that would cause it to doubt the real name of the witness known as Timothy Anderson. It has further provided reference to the document by which Plaintiff may ascertain the duration of his detention in line with Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.230. Defendant’s response that it lacks facts to support its denial of Plaintiff’s harm is a straightforward concession in favor of Plaintiff’s case, not an evasive response. Plaintiff’s request for relief has already been denied as to Special Interrogatories, Set Two, No. 2, 7, and 8. And finally, any request for a further response to Requests for Production, Set Three, served on May 12, 2023, has long been untimely under the 45-day deadline to bring a motion to compel further. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.310, subd. (c).

The motion for terminating sanctions is therefore DENIED. Defendant is directed to provide a further response to Requests for Production, Set One, Requests No. 3 and 6, specifically identifying the disposition of the documents sought under Code of Civil Procedure § 2031.230. No sanctions are awarded.