Judge Jill Feeney, Case 21STCV30484 2023-01-05 Tentative Ruling

This is an action for strict liability and negligence arising from a dog attack which took place in May 2021. Plaintiff Eve Ohayon filed her Complaint against Defendants Ryan and Sarah Johnson on August 17, 2021.

Defendants argue that terminating sanctions are appropriate because Plaintiff failed to obey the Court’s November 3, 2022 order by serving redacted responses to Defendants’ request for production of documents in violation of the Court’s November 3, 2022 order. In the alternative, Defendant requests monetary and evidentiary sanctions.

Plaintiff argues that she made a good faith attempt at complying with the Court’s November 3, 2022 order. Plaintiff argues that redacting the documents related to her equestrian activities was necessary because USEF was uncomfortable with sharing information, including credit card information. Plaintiff argues that she is willing to stipulate to waive her loss of earnings claims.

Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s claims that the redactions were requested by USEF are unsubstantiated because the redacted documents were not created by USEF. Defendants reiterate that Plaintiff willfully violated the Court’s order by redacting the documents requested.

“The trial court may order a terminating sanction for discovery abuse ‘after considering the totality of the circumstances: [the] conduct of the party to determine if the actions were willful; the detriment to the propounding party; and the number of formal and informal attempts to obtain the discovery.’” (Los Defensores, Inc. v. Gomez (2014) 223 Cal. App. 4th 377, 390, quoting Lang v. Hochman (2000) 77 Cal. App. 4th 1225, 1246.)

“Generally, ‘[a] decision to order terminating sanctions should not be made lightly. But where a violation is willful, preceded by a history of abuse, and the evidence shows that less severe sanctions would not produce compliance with the discovery rules, the trial court is justified in imposing the ultimate sanction.’” (Los Defensores, supra, 223 Cal. App. 4th at p. 390 [citation omitted].)

“Under this standard, trial courts have properly imposed terminating sanctions when parties have willfully disobeyed one or more discovery orders.” (Los Defensores, supra, 223 Cal.App.4th at p. 390 citing Lang, supra, 77 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1244-1246 [discussing cases]; see, e.g., Collisson & Kaplan v. Hartunian (1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 1611, 1617-1622 [terminating sanctions imposed (by striking the defendant’s Answer and subsequently granting default judgment) after defendants failed to comply with one court order to produce discovery]; Laguna Auto Body v. Farmers Ins. Exchange (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 481, 491, disapproved on other grounds in Garcia v. McCutchen (1997) 16 Cal.4th 469, 478, n. 4 [terminating sanctions imposed against the plaintiff for failing to comply with a discovery order and for violating various discovery statutes].)

Defendants argue that the Court may grant terminating sanctions because Plaintiff failed to obey the Court’s order compelling discovery responses by submitting redacted documents and failing to submit complete responses.

On November 3, 2022, the Court granted Defendant’s motion to compel further discovery responses and ordered Plaintiff to provide further verified responses without objections and to produce unredacted versions of all documents responsive to each request within 15 days after the date of the order.

Defendant’s counsel testifies that on November 18, 2022, Plaintiff produced her second further responses and objections to Defendant’s requests for production of documents, set three. (Mandell Decl., ¶9.) Plaintiff continued to assert objections and the responses contained incomplete pages, blurry pages, and illegible pages. (Id., ¶10.) Plaintiff also redacted information including the names of the horses Plaintiff bought and sold, the names of the buyers or sellers, and the contact information of the buyers and sellers. (Id.) Although Plaintiff represented that others had redacted the documents or that her father had redacted the documents, Plaintiff’s father maintained the documents himself and passed away before this action was filed. (Id., ¶11.)

The Court may not grant Defendant’s motion to dismiss because Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the November 3, 2022 order was not preceded by a history of abuse and the evidence does not show that less severe sanctions would not produce compliance with the discovery rules. Plaintiff participated in discovery conferences and appeared at the hearing on the motion to compel further discovery responses in dispute. Given Plaintiff’s active participation in litigation, terminating sanctions are not proper.

In the alternative, Defendant seeks monetary sanctions pursuant to Code Civ. Proc., section 2030.290, subd. (c), which provides that a court may grant monetary sanctions in lieu of or in addition to nonmonetary sanctions if a party fails to obey an order compelling answers to discovery requests. Here, Plaintiff failed to obey the Court’s November 3, 2022 order compelling Plaintiff to serve further unredacted responses to Defendant’s discovery requests without objections. Because Plaintiff failed to obey the Court’s November 3, 2022 order, Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions is granted. Defendant requests $1,462.50 in sanctions for 7.5 hours of attorney time reviewing the deficient responses and preparing the instant motion at a rate of $195 an hour. The request is granted.