Judge James L. Crandall, Case 19-1094708 2022-12-15 Tentative Ruling

Judge: James L. Crandall, Case: 19-1094708, Date: 2022-12-15 Tentative Ruling

1. Motion to Dismiss

2. Motion to Dismiss

3. Motion to Dismiss

4. Motion to Dismiss

Motion 1: Robb Ferguson’s Motion for Sanctions and to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One

Defendant Robb Ferguson’s (Defendant) Motion to Compel Plaintiff Martin Anthony Silva’s Written Responses to Defendant’s Special Interrogatories, Set One and for Monetary and Terminating Sanctions (Motion), filed 7-28-22 under ROA No. 357 is MOOT as to request for order compelling responses and DENIED as to the request for sanctions.

Responses to special interrogatories are due “within 30 days after service” of the requests or interrogatories.  (Code Civ. Proc., §2030.260, subd. (a).) If a party served with special interrogatories fails to timely respond, the propounding party may move for an order compelling responses.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (b).)

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.030, the court may impose sanctions against anyone “engaging in conduct that is a misuse of the discovery process.” Specifically, the court may impose a “monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.030, subd. (a).) Additionally, the court may impose issue sanctions, evidence sanctions, or terminating sanctions. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.030, subds. (b)-(d).)

It is well established that the primary purpose of discovery sanctions is curative, not punitive. (Welgoss v. End (1967) 252 Cal.App.2d 982, 992; Caryl Richards, Inc. v. Superior Court (1961) 188 Cal.App.2d 300, 303-304.) Generally, the discovery statutes evince an incremental approach to sanctions, starting with monetary sanctions and ending with the ultimate sanction of dismissal. (Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 967, 992.) “Although in extreme cases a court has the authority to order a terminating sanction as a first measure [citations], 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 and Tract Society of New York, Inc. (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 566, 604-605.)

A terminating sanction is a draconian remedy, and it is appropriate only when less severe alternatives will not vindicate the court’s authority and the purpose of the subject discovery. (Rail Services of America v. State Com. Ins. Fund (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 323, 332; New Albertsons, Inc. v. Superior Court (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1423.)

Defendant moves for the following order: “for terminating Plaintiff Martin Anthony Silva's ("Plaintiff's") case against Mr. Ferguson, Walt Disney Parks and Resorts U.S., Inc. ("WDPR"), and The Walt Disney Company ("TWDC") (collectively, "Defendants") with prejudice, and issuing appropriate monetary sanctions. If the Court is not inclined to issue terminating sanctions, Mr. Ferguson requests that the Court compel Plaintiff to provide written responses to Mr. Ferguson's Special Interrogatories, Set One, and continue the trial to allow Mr. Ferguson to conduct necessary discovery.” (Motion, 2:5-10.)

Defendant argues that the Motion must be granted because Plaintiff has a “documented history of abusing the discovery process” given that Plaintiff was mostly recently ordered on 6-16-22 to provide initial and supplemental responses, produce documents, and pay a monetary sanction in connection with Plaintiff’s failure to respond to Defendant’s 2019 discovery. (Motion, 7:27-8:2.) Further, Plaintiff allegedly violated this order because he did not pay sanctions and provide responses until 7-21-22, ten days later and after Defendant warned him it would be seeking sanctions for his failure to comply (Motion, 8:2-7.)

Defendant additionally argues that Plaintiff continues to engage in discovery abuse because Plaintiff has failed to respond to Special Interrogatories, Set One served 6-16-22 to date or provide a date certain by which he would respond. (Motion, 8:8-19.)

On 6-16-22, the court ruled on Defendants’ Motions to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories and to Compel Production. The court granted the motions in part and ordered Plaintiff to serve further responses to Special Interrogatories, numbers 25-27 and pay sanctions of $880 to Defendants within 20 days. Plaintiff was also ordered to serve further responses to Request for Production, numbers 38-39 and to produce documents responsive numbers 1-6 and 9-16.

In opposition, Plaintiff argues that the Motion must be denied because Plaintiff informed Defendant that he was unable to timely respond to discovery in July 2022 due to illness and hospitalization. Further, Plaintiff represents that he has now responded to Defendant’s Special Interrogatories, Set One. Plaintiff’s counsel, Parth N. Shah attests as follows in support of Opposition: “Shortly after Defendant served additional discovery requests and the Court ordered supplemental responses Plaintiff became extremely ill and after some time needed to visit the emergency room at Riverside Community Hospital…[¶] On July 18, 2022, Plaintiff’s counsel advised Defendants’ counsel that Plaintiff was admitted to the hospital due to a serious health issue and Plaintiff needs additional time to provide discovery responses. On July 20, 2022, due to the insistence of Defendants’ counsel, Plaintiff’s counsel provided additional details regarding Plaintiff’s hospitalization and informed Defendants’ counsel that a check has been sent to compensate Defendants for sanctions issued by the Court…[¶] On July 26, 2022, Plaintiff’s counsel provided further information regarding the status of outstanding discovery responses by informing Defendants’ counsel that Plaintiff is still suffering from a serious medical condition and additional time is needed to provide further responses.” (Shah Decl., ¶¶ 4-6.)

Exhibit B to the Declaration of Beatrice Nunez-Bellamy in Support of Reply, filed 12-8-22 under ROA No. 401 includes a copy of Plaintiff’s Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One at issue in this motion. Plaintiff has responded to each interrogatory at issue. Additionally, Defendant admits that Plaintiff served responses and paid sanctions in response to the court’s 6-16-22 order on 7-21-22.

Based on the foregoing, the court finds Defendant’s Motion MOOT as to the request for an order compelling responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One. Plaintiff has responded to all discovery at issue in the instant Motion.

Further, having found the Motion moot, the court DENIES Defendant’s request for terminating and monetary sanctions. The court finds that terminating sanctions are not warranted in this instance because Plaintiff has complied with his outstanding discovery obligations to Defendant. Additionally, the court accepts the Shah Declaration as evidence that any delay in Plaintiff’s compliance with the 6-16-22 order was due to sufficient justification. The court also denies Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions for the same reasons stated.

In summary, Defendant Robb Ferguson’s (Defendant) Motion to Compel Plaintiff Martin Anthony Silva’s Written Responses to Defendant’s Special Interrogatories, Set One and for Monetary and Terminating Sanctions (Motion), filed 7-28-22 under ROA No. 357 is MOOT as to request for order compelling responses and DENIED as to the request for sanctions.

Plaintiff is to give notice.

Motion 2: WDC’s Motion for Sanctions and to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One

Defendant, the Walt Disney Company’s (Defendant) Motion to Compel Plaintiff Martin Anthony Silva’s Written Responses to Defendant’s Special Interrogatories, Set One and for Monetary and Terminating Sanctions (Motion), filed 7-28-22 under ROA No. 361 is GRANTED as to the request for ordering compelling responses to Special Interrogatory number 2 and otherwise MOOT as to the request for order compelling responses. The Motion is DENIED as to all requests for sanctions.

Defendant moves for the following order: “for terminating Plaintiff Martin Anthony Silva's ("Plaintiff's") case against TWDC, Walt Disney Parks and Resorts U.S., Inc. ("WDPR"), and Robb Ferguson (collectively, "Defendants") with prejudice, and issuing appropriate monetary sanctions. If the Court is not inclined to issue terminating sanctions, TWDC requests that the Court compel Plaintiff to provide written responses to TWDC's Special Interrogatories, Set One, and continue the trial to allow TWDC to conduct necessary discovery.” (Motion, 2:5-10.)

Exhibit B to the Declaration of Beatrice Nunez-Bellamy in Support of Reply, filed 12-8-22 under ROA No. 401 includes a copy of Plaintiff’s Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One at issue in this motion. The court has reviewed Plaintiff’s responses to Defendant’s Special Interrogatories, Set One and finds that Plaintiff has served a response to each interrogatory at issue other than interrogatory number 2. Additionally, Defendant admits that Plaintiff served responses and paid sanctions in response to the court’s 6-16-22 order on 7-21-22.

Based on the foregoing, the court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion as to interrogatory number 2 only and finds the remainder of the Motion MOOT. The Motion is MOOT as to the remaining interrogatories because Plaintiff has served a response to each prior to the hearing on this Motion.

Further, the court DENIES Defendant’s request for terminating and monetary sanctions. The court finds that terminating sanctions are not warranted in this instance because Plaintiff has complied with his outstanding discovery obligations to Defendant other than as to interrogatory number 2 only. Such conduct does not warrant terminating sanctions. Additionally, the court accepts the Shah Declaration as evidence that any delay in Plaintiff’s compliance with the 6-16-22 order was due to sufficient justification. The Shah Declaration serves as additional evidence that Plaintiff’s delay in serving responses is not sanctionable at this time.

In summary, Defendant, the Walt Disney Company’s (Defendant) Motion to Compel Plaintiff Martin Anthony Silva’s Written Responses to Defendant’s Special Interrogatories, Set One and for Monetary and Terminating Sanctions (Motion), filed 7-28-22 under ROA No. 361 is GRANTED as to the request for ordering compelling responses to Special Interrogatory number 2 and otherwise MOOT as to the request for order compelling responses. The Motion is DENIED as to all requests for sanctions.

Plaintiff is to give notice.

Motion 3: WDPR’s Motion for Sanctions and to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set Three

Defendant Walt Parks and Resorts U.S., Inc.’s (Defendant) Motion to Compel Plaintiff Martin Anthony Silva’s Written Responses to Defendant’s Special Interrogatories, Set Three and for Monetary and Terminating Sanctions (Motion), filed 7-28-22 under ROA No. 353 is MOOT as to request for order compelling responses and DENIED as to the request for sanctions.

Defendant moves for the following order: “for terminating Plaintiff Martin Anthony Silva's ("Plaintiffs") case against WDPR, The Walt Disney Company ("TWDC"), and Robb Ferguson (collectively, "Defendants") with prejudice, and issuing appropriate monetary sanctions. If the Court is not inclined to issue terminating sanctions, WDPR requests that the Court compel Plaintiff to provide written responses to WDPR's Special Interrogatories, Set Three, and continue the trial to allow WDPR to conduct necessary discovery.” (Motion, 2:5-10.)

In opposition, Plaintiff argues that the Motion must be denied because Plaintiff informed Defendant that he was unable to timely respond to discovery in July 2022 due to illness and hospitalization. Further, Plaintiff represents that he has now responded to Defendant’s Special Interrogatories, Set Three. Plaintiff’s counsel, Parth N. Shah attests as follows in support of Opposition: “Shortly after Defendant served additional discovery requests and the Court ordered supplemental responses Plaintiff became extremely ill and after some time needed to visit the emergency room at Riverside Community Hospital…[¶] On July 18, 2022, Plaintiff’s counsel advised Defendants’ counsel that Plaintiff was admitted to the hospital due to a serious health issue and Plaintiff needs additional time to provide discovery responses. On July 20, 2022, due to the insistence of Defendants’ counsel, Plaintiff’s counsel provided additional details regarding Plaintiff’s hospitalization and informed Defendants’ counsel that a check has been sent to compensate Defendants for sanctions issued by the Court…[¶] On July 26, 2022, Plaintiff’s counsel provided further information regarding the status of outstanding discovery responses by informing Defendants’ counsel that Plaintiff is still suffering from a serious medical condition and additional time is needed to provide further responses.” (Shah Decl., ¶¶ 4-6.)

Exhibit B to the Declaration of Beatrice Nunez-Bellamy in Support of Reply, filed 12-8-22 under ROA No. 401 includes a copy of Plaintiff’s Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set Three at issue in this motion. Plaintiff responded to all interrogatories at issue in this Motion. Additionally, Defendant admits that Plaintiff served responses and paid sanctions in response to the court’s 6-16-22 order on 7-21-22.

Based on the foregoing, the court finds Defendant’s Motion MOOT as to the request for an order compelling responses to Special Interrogatories, Set Three because Plaintiff has responded to all discovery at issue in the instant Motion prior to the hearing on the Motion.

In summary, Defendant Walt Parks and Resorts U.S., Inc.’s (Defendant) Motion to Compel Plaintiff Martin Anthony Silva’s Written Responses to Defendant’s Special Interrogatories, Set Three and for Monetary and Terminating Sanctions (Motion), filed 7-28-22 under ROA No. 353 is MOOT as to request for order compelling responses and DENIED as to the request for sanctions.

Plaintiff is to give notice.

Motion 4: WDC’s Motion for Sanctions and to Compel Responses to Requests for Production, Set Three

Defendant Walt Disney Parks and Resorts U.S., Inc.’s (Defendant) Motion to Compel Responses to Requests for Production, Set Three and for Monetary and Terminating Sanctions (Motion), filed 7-28-22 under ROA No. 365 is MOOT as to the request for order compelling further responses and DENIED as to the request for sanctions.

Responses to requests for production are due “within 30 days after service” of the requests or interrogatories.  (Code Civ. Proc., §2031.260, subd. (a).) If a party served with requests for production fails to timely respond, the propounding party may move for an order compelling responses.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (b).)

Defendant moves for the following order: “for terminating Plaintiff Martin Anthony Silva's ("Plaintiffs") case against WDPR, The Walt Disney Company ("TWDC"), and Robb Ferguson (collectively, "Defendants") with prejudice, and issuing appropriate monetary sanctions. If the Court is not inclined to issue terminating sanctions, WDPR requests that the Court compel Plaintiff to provide written responses to WDPR's Requests for Production, Set Three, and continue the trial to allow WDPR to conduct necessary discovery.” (Motion, 1:5-10.)

Defendant argues that the Motion must be granted because Plaintiff has a “documented history of abusing the discovery process” given that Plaintiff was mostly recently ordered on 6-16-22 to provide initial and supplemental responses, produce documents, and pay a monetary sanction in connection with Plaintiff’s failure to respond to Defendant’s 2019 discovery. (Motion, 6:27-7:2.) Further, Plaintiff allegedly violated this order because he did not pay sanctions and provide responses until 7-21-22, ten days later and after Defendant warned him it would be seeking sanctions for his failure to comply (Motion, 7:2-6.)

Exhibit B to the Declaration of Beatrice Nunez-Bellamy in Support of Reply, filed 12-8-22 under ROA No. 401 includes a copy of Plaintiff’s Responses to Requests for Production, Set Three at issue in this motion. Plaintiff responded to all requests at issue in this Motion. Additionally, Defendant admits that Plaintiff served responses and paid sanctions in response to the court’s 6-16-22 order on 7-21-22.

Based on the foregoing, the court finds Defendant’s Motion MOOT as to the request for an order compelling responses to Requests for Production, Set Three because Plaintiff has responded to all discovery at issue in the instant Motion prior to the hearing on the Motion.

Further, having found the Motion moot, the court DENIES Defendant’s request for terminating and monetary sanctions. The court finds that terminating sanctions are not warranted in this instance because Plaintiff has complied with his outstanding discovery obligations to Defendant. Additionally, the court accepts Plaintiff’s representation that his delay in complying with discovery obligations was due to health reasons. This serves as another basis to deny the request for terminating sanctions. The court also denies Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions for the same reasons stated.

In summary, Defendant Walt Disney Parks and Resorts U.S., Inc.’s (Defendant) Motion to Compel Responses to Requests for Production, Set Three and for Monetary and Terminating Sanctions (Motion), filed 7-28-22 under ROA No. 365 is MOOT as to the request for order compelling further responses and DENIED as to the request for sanctions.

Plaintiff is to give notice.