Judge: Jill Feeney, Case: 21STCV16843, Date: 2023-02-10 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV16843 Hearing Date: February 10, 2023 Dept: 30
Department 30, Spring Street Courthouse
February 10, 2023
21STCV16843
Motion for Evidence Sanctions and Other Relief filed by Defendants Ryan and Sarah Johnson.
DECISION
The motion is granted in part and denied in part.
Plaintiffs are ordered to produce the car at issue for inspection within 30 days after the date of this order.
Moving party to provide notice and to file proof of service of such notice within five court days after the date of this order.
Background
This is an action for negligence arising from a vehicle collision which took place in July 2019. Plaintiffs Terry Carter and Haydee Kabigting filed their Complaint against Defendants Sona Markosyan and Liana Mkrtchyan on May 5, 2021.
Defendant Sona Markosyan filed the instant motion for evidence sanctions on December 15, 2022.
Summary
Moving Arguments
Markosyan moves for evidence sanctions on the grounds that Plaintiffs refused to respond to her requests for vehicle inspection. Markosyan argues that she will be prejudiced if she cannot inspect and test the vehicle at issue. Alternatively, Markosyan moves for an order compelling Plaintiffs to comply with the inspection requests.
Opposition Arguments
None filed.
Legal Standard
An evidence sanction prohibits a party from introducing designated matters in evidence. (Code Civ. Proc., section 2023.030, subd. (c).) In general, a court may not impose an issue, evidence, or terminating sanction unless a party disobeys a court order. (Moofly Prods., LLC v Favila (2020) 46 CA5th 1, 11.)
If a party filing a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing or sampling thereafter fails to permit the inspection, copying, testing, or sampling in accordance with that party's statement of compliance, the demanding party may move for an order compelling compliance. (Code Civ. Proc., section 2031.320, subd. (a).)
Sanctions are mandatory against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel compliance with a demand, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. (Code Civ. Proc., section 2031.320, subd. (b).)
Discovery sanctions may not be imposed under Section 2023.030, even together with Section 2023.010, absent another provision of the Discovery Act that authorizes the imposition of sanctions.. (City of Los Angeles v. Pricewaterhouse Coopers (Court of Appeal, Second District (2022) 2022 WL 12010415.)
Discussion
Markosyan moves evidence sanctions against Plaintiffs on the grounds that Plaintiffs refused to comply with Markosyan’s request for vehicle inspection.
Markosyan’s counsel testifies that his office propounded a demand for inspection and copying of documents and things on Plaintiffs on November 11, 2022. (Walls Decl., ¶4.) Plaintiffs responded indicating they would comply but thereafter refused to comply and objected to Defendant’s request that the vehicle at issue be produced for inspection. (Id., ¶5.)
Markosyan’s motion for evidence sanctions is denied because Plaintiffs did not violate a court order.
Markosyan’s evidence shows that Plaintiffs agreed to the inspection on a date that is feasible for all parties. Although Plaintiffs filed an objection to Markosyan’s request, Plaintiff agreed to the inspection on a different date than the noticed date, citing unavailability. (Motion, Exh. B.) The parties’ communications show that Plaintiffs thereafter refused to move forward with the vehicle inspections. (Motion, Exh. C.) Because Plaintiffs agreed to the inspection and thereafter refused to produce the vehicle for inspection, Markosyan’s motion to compel compliance with the inspection demand is granted.
With respect to sanctions, sanctions are only permitted against a party who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel compliance. Here, Markosyan’s request for sanctions is denied because the motion was unopposed.
