Judge: Holly J. Fujie, Case: 22STCV18330, Date: 2023-04-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV18330    Hearing Date: June 20, 2023    Dept: 56

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff

The Court has considered the moving papers.  No opposition papers were filed.  Any opposition papers were required to have been filed and served at least nine court days before the hearing under California Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) section 1005, subdivision (b).

BACKGROUND

This action arises out of an employment relationship.  Plaintiff’s complaint (the “Complaint”) alleging: (1) retaliation pursuant to Labor Code section 1102.5; (2) retaliation pursuant in violation of Labor Code section 6310; (3) common law assault; (4) common law battery; (5) negligent hiring, supervision, or retention of employee; (6) constructive discharge; and (7) failure to pay minimum wages in violation of several Labor Code provisions. 

On May 23, 2023, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel further responses and/or impose terminating sanctions (the “Motion”) on the grounds that Defendant BTG LA LLC (“Defendant”) has failed to comply with its discovery obligations as previously ordered by the Court.   

DISCUSSION

Under CCP section 2023.030, where a party engages in misuse of discovery process, the court may impose monetary, issue, evidence, terminating, or contempt sanctions.  (See CCP § 2023.030.)  Misuses of the discovery process include failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery and disobeying a court order to provide discovery.  (See CCP § 2023.010, subds. (d), (g).) 

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 absent unusual circumstances, the court must generally find: (1) a failure to comply with a court order; and (2) the failure was willful.  (Biles v. Exxon Mobil Corp. (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1315, 1327.) 

The court should consider the totality of the circumstances, including conduct of the party to determine if the actions were willful, the determent to the propounding party, and the number of formal and informal attempts to obtain discovery.  (Lang v. Hochman (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 1225, 1246.)  If a lesser sanction fails to curb abuse, a greater sanction is warranted.  (Van Sickle v. Gilbert (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1495, 1516.)  However, the unsuccessful imposition of a lesser sanction is not an absolute prerequisite to the utilization of the ultimate sanction.  (Deyo v. Killbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 787.)  Terminating sanctions should not be ordered lightly, but are justified where a violation is willful, preceded by a history of abuse, and there is evidence that less severe sanctions would not produce compliance with the discovery rules.  (Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 967, 992.) 

On February 22, 2023, the Court issued a minute order granting Plaintiff’s motion to compel responses and motion to deem requests admitted on the grounds that Defendant did not timely provide responses to Plaintiff’s discovery requests.  (See Declaration of Shiraz Simonian (“Simonian Decl.”) ¶ 11.)  The responses Defendant later provided on March 14, 2023 improperly contained objections and lacked verifications.  (See Simonian Decl. ¶¶ 13-15, Exhibits 2-5.)  Defendant also failed to pay $1,500 in sanctions that were issued in the February 22, 2023 order.  (Simonian Decl. ¶ 16.)  On March 20, 2023, Plaintiff filed a motion to enforce the February 22, 2023 order and/or issue terminating sanctions.  (Simonian Decl. ¶ 18.)  On April 27, 2023, the Court declined to issue terminating sanctions but issued an order requiring Defendant to comply with the February 20, 2023 order and pay Plaintiff additional monetary sanctions in the amount of $2,500.  (Simonian Decl. ¶ 19.)  As of the filing of the Motion, Defendant had not complied with any of the conditions in the April 27, 2023 order.  

The Court finds that terminating sanctions are warranted at this time due to Defendant’s repeated misuse of discovery and noncompliance with the Court’s orders.  For this reason and because it is unopposed, the Court GRANTS the Motion.  (Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410.)

Monetary Sanctions

            In connection with the Motion, Plaintiff requests a total of $3,810 in monetary sanctions.  This amount represents: (1) five hours drafting the moving papers; (2) an anticipated 2.5 hours reviewing opposition papers, drafting reply papers, and appearing at the hearing at an hourly rate of $500 per hour; and (3) a $60 filing fee.  (Simonian Decl. ¶ 22.) 

The Court exercises its discretion and awards Plaintiff sanctions in the reasonable amount of $2,560, which represents five hours drafting the Motion at an hourly rate of $500 per hour and a $60 filing fee.  (Moran v. Oso Valley Greenbelt Assn. (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 1029, 1034.)  Defendant and its counsel are jointly responsible for paying this amount within 20 days of this order.

             Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

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.

           Dated this 20th day of June 2023