Judge: Joel L. Lofton, Case: 20STCV09531, Date: 2023-10-17 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 20STCV09531 Hearing Date: October 17, 2023 Dept: X
Judge Joel L. Lofton, Department X
HEARING DATE: October 17, 2023 TRIAL
DATE: No date set.
CASE: SHU-HUI
TING, an individual, v. FASHION PARK VILLAS-OWNERS ASSOCIATION, a California
nonprofit corporation; BEVEN AND BROCK PROPERTY MANAGEMENT COMPANY, INC, a
California corporation, AND DOES 1 through 50.
CASE NO.: 20STCV09531
MOTION FOR SANCTIONS
MOVING
PARTY: Plaintiff Shu-Hui Ting
RESPONDING
PARTY: Defendants Fashion Park Villas-Owners
Association and Beven and Brock Property Management Company, Inc.
SERVICE:
Filed September 25, 2023
OPPOSITION: Filed October 5, 2023
REPLY: Filed October 10, 2023
RELIEF REQUESTED
Plaintiff
moves for an order imposing terminating, issue, evidentiary, and monetary
sanctions on Defendants.
BACKGROUND
This case arises out of Plaintiff Shu-Hui Ting’s (“Plaintiff”) claim that
her daughter, Huan Chia Tseng (“Ms. Tseng”) drowned due to Defendants Fashion
Park Villas-Owners Association and Beven & Brock Property Management
Company, Inc.’s (“Beven”) (collectively “Defendants”) failure to properly
maintain the swimming pool located on the property Plaintiff filed this
complaint on March 9, 2020, alleging three causes of action for (1) negligence
– premises liability, (2) negligence per se, and (3) negligence – res ipsa
loquitor. On September 18, 2020, a demurrer was sustained in part to
Plaintiff’s complaint as to the second and third causes of action. Thus, only
the first cause of action remains.
TENTATIVE RULING
Plaintiff’s requests for monetary sanctions
will be determined at the hearing. All
other types of sanctions are DENIED.
LEGAL STANDARD
Section 2023.030 authorizes a trial court to impose monetary sanctions, issue
sanctions, evidence sanctions, or terminating sanctions against ‘anyone
engaging in conduct that is a misuse of the discovery process.’ ” (Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 967, 991.) “The discovery statutes evince an incremental
approach to discovery sanctions, starting with monetary sanctions and ending
with the ultimate sanction of termination.” (Id. at p. 992.)
Code
of Civil Procedure section 2023.030, subdivision (d) provides that a court may
impose terminating sanctions by one of the following orders: “(1) An order
striking out the pleadings or parts of the pleadings of any party engaging in
the misuse of the discovery process. [¶] (2) An order staying further proceedings by that
party until an order for discovery is obeyed. [¶] (3) An order dismissing the action, or any part
of the action, of that party. [¶] (4) An order rendering a judgment by default
against that party.”
DISCUSSION
I
would like to begin this discussion with a reminder from our appellate court, “[A]ttorney skill is a
traditional touchstone for deciding whether to adjust a lodestar (and) civility is an aspect of skill. Civility is desirable in litigation, not only because it is
ethically required for its own sake, but also because it is socially
advantageous: it lowers the costs of dispute resolution… Incivility between
counsel is sand in the gears. Incivility can rankle relations and thereby
increase the friction, extent, and cost of litigation. Calling opposing counsel,
a liar, for instance, can invite destructive reciprocity and generate needless
controversies.” Karton
v. Ari Design & Construction, Inc., (2021) 61 Cal. App. 5th
734, 747, 276 (Emphasis
added).
Although
the court understands that there may be honest disagreements regarding issues surrounding
our discovery statues, the court has no patience for petty vitriol and personal
attacks between counsel. Here, the Plaintiff moves for a variety of sanctions against
Defendants for failure to comply with a court order issued on June 5, 2023.
“The discovery
statutes thus ‘evince an incremental approach to discovery sanctions, starting with monetary sanctions and ending with the ultimate sanction of termination.’
[Citation.] 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 [citations].” (Lopez v. Watchtower
Bible & Tract Society of New York, Inc. (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 566,
604.)
On May 15, 2023,
this court granted Plaintiff’s four motions to compel further responses from
Defendants to Plaintiff’s discovery requests. The court ordered Defendants to
provide code compliant responses without objections within 20 days of notice of
the ruling on the order. Plaintiff provides that Fashion Park Villas-Owners
failed to respond on time and that when both Defendants did respond, the
responses were deficient. (Lee Decl. ¶ 12-14.) The
court recognizes that Defendants responded, in part, with objections, which
defies the previous order. Additionally, the court recognizes that Fashion Park
Villas-Owners failed to provide timely responses. However, Plaintiff seeks a
variety of sanctions, including terminating sanctions (which are completely unreasonable
at this point) and $19,360.00 in monetary sanctions, for these infractions.
The court however is concerned with Plaintiffs
assertion that Defendants failed to respond to two separate emails offering to
meet and confer on dates Aug 3,2023 and Sept 21, 2023. Defendants did not address this in their opposition,
which as pointed out by the Plaintiffs was rather thin. However, concerning code complaint responses
to Plaintiffs request for production of documents, the court would like to
remind the Plaintiff that if a defendant states that he is unable to comply and produce documents because no such documents exist, that
response meets the standards of section 2031.230. If after making this denial, said documents suddenly appear at trial then that would be the appropriate
time to move this court to exclude them.
However, I do have a question about whether a diligent search of some of
these documents was conducted.
At this point, the Plaintiff has failed to
demonstrate that sanctions are warranted in the present circumstances. “Civil discovery is
intended to operate with a minimum of judicial intervention. ‘[I]t is a
“central precept” of the Civil Discovery Act ... that discovery ‘be essentially
self-executing[.]’ ” (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific
Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 402.) Such overreaching
sanctions are not warranted yet. However,
the court admonishes the parties to act in good faith during the discovery
process. “Thus reasonable and good faith efforts at informal resolution of
discovery disputes are no doubt a key part of the discovery system.” (Obergon
v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 424,p 434.)
Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions
will be determined at the hearing. The court
will be interested to know whether the Defendants responded to Plaintiffs request
to meet and confer and whether the Defendants conducted a diligent search for the
requested documents.
All other types of sanctions are DENIED.
For the hearing the parties are reminded
that the California State Bar amended the oath new attorneys take to add a civility requirement. Since 2014, new attorneys have been required to
vow to treat opposing counsel with “dignity, courtesy, and integrity.”[1] Lasalle v.
Vogel, (2019) 36 Cal. App. 5th 127, 134,
CONCLUSION
Plaintiff’s requests for sanctions
are TBD are hearing based on above guidelines.
Dated: October 17, 2023 ___________________________________
Joel
L. Lofton
Judge
of the Superior Court