Judge: Joel L. Lofton, Case: 20STCV33913, Date: 2023-09-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV33913    Hearing Date: April 9, 2024    Dept: X

   Tentative Ruling

Judge Joel L. Lofton, Department X

HEARING DATE:      April 9, 2024                                       TRIAL DATE: April 30, 2024

CASE:                         IK HOON CHOI; HANNAH CHOI v. FILIPPO MARCHINO; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive.

CASE NO.:                 20STCV33913

MOTION FOR SANCTIONS

MOVING PARTY:               Plaintiffs Ik Hoon Choi and Hannah Choi

RESPONDING PARTY:      Defendant Filippo Marchino and Witness Allison Klein

SERVICE:                              Filed March 15, 2024

OPPOSITION:                       Filed March 26, 2024

REPLY:                                   Filed April 2, 2024

RELIEF REQUESTED

             Plaintiffs move for an order imposing monetary and evidentiary sanctions.

BACKGROUND

             This claim arises out of Plaintiffs Ik Hoon (“Ik Hoon”) Choi and Hannah Choi (“Hannah”) (collectively “Plaintiffs”) claim that Defendant Filippo Marchino’s (“Defendant”)  dog bit plaintiff Ik Hoon. Plaintiffs filed their complaint on September 4, 2023.

TENTATIVE RULING

            Plaintiffs’ motion for sanctions is DENIED.

DISCUSSION

            Plaintiffs move for sanctions against Defendant for failing to produce Allison Klein for deposition testimony.

            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.)

            On September 11, 2023, this court granted Plaintiffs’ motion to compel the deposition testimony of Allison Klein. Plaintiffs’ counsel provides that the parties discussed potential deposition dates. (Hoffman Decl. ¶¶ 7-10.) Plaintiffs’ counsel provides that he left messages requesting dates on January 4, 2024, January 9, 2024, and January 11, 2024. (Id. ¶ 12.) In opposition, Defendant and Klein contend that Plaintiffs failed to make any contact after the January 11, 2024, messages. However, Defendant and Klein do not contend that they made any attempt to contact Plaintiffs’ counsel.

            Klein contends that their conduct was permissible because the court’s previous order did not set a specific date for deposition. However, “[c]ivil 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.) In the current case, Klein and Defendant failed to respond to Plaintiffs’ counsel’s attempt to schedule a deposition and waited seven months before agreeing to a deposition date of April 3, 2024. (Davis Decl. ¶ 4.)

            Nonetheless, the court denies Plaintiffs motion for sanctions, and Klein’s opposing request for sanctions. The court assumes that the deposition has already been completed by the time of this hearing.  The court reminds the parties that the FIRM[1] trial date is two weeks away.  Please let the court know if it can be of assistance in settling the matter.

CONCLUSION

            Plaintiffs’ motion for sanctions is DENIED.

Dated:  April 9, 2024                                                  ___________________________________

                                                                                    Joel L. Lofton

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court