Judge Holly J. Fujie, Case 20STCV19331 2022-07-26 Tentative Ruling

DEPARTMENT 56 JUDGE HOLLY J. FUJIE, LAW AND MOTION RULINGS. The court makes every effort to post tentative rulings by 5.00 pm of the court day before the hearing. The tentative ruling will not become the final ruling until the hearing [see CRC 3.1308(a)(2)], and are also available in the courtroom on the day of the hearing [see CRC 3.1308(b)]. If the parties wish to submit on the tentative ruling and avoid a court appearance, all counsel must agree and choose which counsel will give notice. That counsel must 1) call Dept 56 by 8:30 a.m. on the day of the hearing (213/633-0656) and state that all parties will submit on the tentative ruling, and 2) serve notice of the ruling on all parties. If any party declines to submit on the tentative ruling, then no telephone call is necessary and all parties should appear at the hearing in person or by Court Call. Court reporters are not provided, and parties who want a record of motions and other proceedings must hire a privately retained certified court reporter.

MOVING PARTIES: Plaintiffs/Cross-Defendants Aiden Sciandra and Boualiene Syprasert (collectively, “Plaintiffs”)

RESPONDING PARTIES: Defendant/Cross-Complainant Chronicpractor Caregiver, Inc., Eric Loyola, and Daniela Alexander (collectively, “Defendants”)

This action arises out of a business relationship related to a marijuana dispensary business. Plaintiffs filed four motions to compel further discovery responses (collectively, the “Motions”). In addition to further responses, the Motions seek terminating and monetary sanctions.

The discovery statutes evince an incremental approach to discovery sanctions, starting with monetary sanctions and ending with the ultimate sanction of termination. (Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 967, 992.) 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. (Id.) Continuing misuses of the discovery process warrant incrementally harsher sanctions until the sanction is reached that will curb the abuse. (Id.) Where discovery violations are willful, preceded by a history of abuse, and the evidence shows that less severe sanctions would not produce compliance with discovery rules, the trial court is justified in imposing the ultimate sanction. (Id.) A trial court has broad discretion to impose discovery sanctions, but two facts are generally a prerequisite to the imposition of nonmonetary sanctions. (Biles v. Exxon Mobil Corp. (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1315, 1327.) Absent unusual circumstances, there generally must be: (1) a failure to comply with a court order; and (2) the failure must be willful. (Id.) A decision to order terminating sanctions should not be made lightly. (Creed-21 v. City of Wildomar (2017) 18 Cal.App.5th 690, 702.) Where a trial court imposes a terminating sanction, a trial court can strike out the pleadings or parts of the pleadings of any party engaging in the misuse of the discovery process. (Id. at 1701.) Although in extreme cases a court has the authority to order a terminating sanction as a first measure, a terminating sanction should generally not be imposed until the court has attempted less severe alternatives and found them to be unsuccessful and/or the record clearly shows lesser sanctions would be ineffective. (Lopez v. Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York, Inc. (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 566, 604-05.)

As a preliminary matter, the Court notes that the Motions are directed at discovery disputes which were addressed in an Informal Discovery Conference (“IDC”) held on April 20, 2022. After the IDC, the Court issued an order specifying the discovery requests to which Defendants’ further responses were required. Defendants were ordered to produce further responses within 30 days of the Court’s order. The Motions indicate that no further responses have been received. To the extent that the Motions seek further responses to the requests previously addressed during the IDC, the proper mechanism for Plaintiffs is to file a motion to enforce compliance with the Court’s April 20, 2022 order. If Defendants have additional concerns regarding the discovery addressed in the April 20, 2022 order, they may schedule a further IDC.

The Court finds that terminating sanctions are not presently warranted, although the Court notes that the discovery process in this matter has been prolonged, and Plaintiffs are not precluded from seeking sanctions in the future. The Court therefore DENIES the Motion. In addition, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ and Defendants’ requests for monetary sanctions.

In consideration of the current COVID-19 pandemic situation, the Court¿strongly¿encourages that appearances on all proceedings, including this one, be made by LACourtConnect if the parties do not submit on the tentative.¿¿If you instead intend to make an appearance in person at Court on this matter, you must send an email by 2 p.m. on the last Court day before the scheduled date of the hearing to¿SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org¿stating your intention to appear in person.¿ The Court will then inform you by close of business that day of the time your hearing will be held. The time set for the hearing may be at any time during that scheduled hearing day, or it may be necessary to schedule the hearing for another date if the Court is unable to accommodate all personal appearances set on that date.¿ This rule is necessary to ensure that adequate precautions can be taken for proper social distancing.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. If the department does not receive an email and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion will be placed off calendar.

Hon. Holly J. Fujie

Judge of the Superior Court