Judge: John J. Kralik, Case: 20STCV18606, Date: 2023-07-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV18606    Hearing Date: January 12, 2024    Dept: NCB

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

North Central District

Department B

BACKGROUND

A.    Allegations

Plaintiffs Ryan Larson and Matthew Hinerfeld (“Plaintiffs”) allege that on December 19, 2019, Plaintiffs used Defendant Lyft, Inc.’s (“Lyft”) app to request transportation to Hinerfeld’s work Christmas party.  Plaintiffs allege that Defendant Ian Woeber (“Woeber”) arrived in a Toyota Corolla and, upon entering the vehicle, they observed a noticeable smoke smell that could not readily be identified as marijuana.  Plaintiffs allege that though they were concerned Woeber was drunk, they relied on Lyft’s zero-tolerance policy for the consumption of drugs and alcohol while driving.  As Woeber was driving, Plaintiffs allege that he hit the brakes and slammed into a Lexus Sedan in front of him.  Thereafter, Plaintiffs allege that Woeber engaged the child locks on the doors, preventing Plaintiffs from exiting the vehicle, and he started to drive away from the scene of the collision.  They allege Woeber let them out about 100 feet from the collision site and fled the collision site. 

The third amended complaint (“TAC”), filed June 2, 2022, alleges causes of action for: (1) negligence against Lyft and Woeber; (2) negligence per se against Woeber; (3) negligent hiring, supervision, or retention against Lyft; (4) common carrier negligence against Lyft; (5) willful and wanton negligence against Woeber; (6) intentional misrepresentation by Mr. Hinerfeld against Lyft; (7) negligent misrepresentation by Mr. Hinerfeld against Lyft; (8) breach of contract against Lyft; and (9) strict products liability against Lyft.    

B.     Motion on Calendar

On November 8, 2023, Woeber filed a motion for terminating sanctions or, in the alternative, evidentiary and monetary sanctions against Plaintiffs. 

On December 29, 2023, Plaintiffs filed opposition papers.

On January 5, 2024, Woeber  filed a reply brief.

DISCUSSION

A.    Terminating Sanctions

According to CCP § 2023.030(d), the court may impose terminating sanctions dismissing the action.  (See also CCP § 575.2.)  Misuse of the discovery process includes failing to respond or submit to an authorized method of discovery, disobeying a court order to provide discovery, and failing to confer with counsel in a reasonable and good faith attempt to informally resolve discovery disputes.  (CCP § 2023.010(d), (g), (i).)  The Court weighs the following factors when considering the present motion: (1) plaintiff’s conduct, indicating whether his/her actions were willful; (2) the detriment to the party seeking discovery; and (3) the number of formal and informal unsuccessful attempts to obtain discovery.  (Lang v. Hochman (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 1225, 1246.)  Ultimate discovery sanctions are justified where there is a willful discovery order violation, a history of abuse, and evidence showing that less severe sanctions would not produce compliance with discovery rules.  (Van Sickle v. Gilbert (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1495, 1516.)

By way of background, Woeber provides the following relevant procedural history.  On June 16, 2023, the Court ordered Plaintiffs to provide further responses to Woeber’s RPD Nos. 19, 20, 22, 23, 25, and 26 within 20 days of notice of the order.  Woeber provided notice of the Court’s ruling by electronic service on June 22, 2023, such that he sought responses by July 14, 2023.  Woeber argues that Plaintiffs failed to comply with the Court’s order by intentionally withholding material documents that had been requested over a year ago, including any and all Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter account data maintained by Plaintiffs referencing or related to their injuries/damages claimed in this lawsuit.  Woeber argues that he has been prejudiced by Plaintiffs’ failure to comply with the Court’s order.  In the reply brief, Woeber argues that Plaintiffs have delayed discovery and their verifications until November 13, 2023, such that sanctions are still warranted. 

In opposition, Plaintiffs argue that they complied with the Court’s order and provided further responses and responsive documents on November 8, 2023 (the date the motion was filed), as well as further amended responses.  Plaintiffs acknowledge that reviewing the vast volume of social media date, which included thousands of videos and documents over multiple platforms, proved to be arduous due to limited staff and counsel’s ongoing trial commitments.  Plaintiffs argue that the delays were unavoidable and that they maintained an open communication with defense counsel and ultimately delivered documents. 

While the circumstances of the belated production of documents is not ideal, documents were eventually produced on November 8, 2023 and verifications were produced on November 13, 2023.  It also appears that prior to the production of documents, Plaintiffs’ counsel had informed defense counsel that it was attempting to comply with the Court’s order such as when Plaintiffs’ counsel informed defense counsel that they had received all of the social media data and were reviewing it in July 2023 and that Plaintiffs’ counsel had disclosed scheduling conflicts (i.e., trials and being out of the office for personal emergencies).  While this in itself does not excuse the belated nature of the discovery responses, the Court finds that imposing terminating sanctions would not be appropriate at this time as efforts to comply with the discovery order were made and Plaintiffs have now served responses.  Further, Plaintiffs should not be punished with the termination of their case for the delays that appear to have been caused in part by their counsel’s schedule.    

The motion for terminating sanctions is denied.

B.     Evidence Sanctions

Evidence sanctions may be imposed against any party engaging in the misuse of the discovery process.  (CCP §§2023.030 (c), 2023.010.)  “'The power to impose discovery sanctions is a broad discretion subject to reversal only for arbitrary, capricious, or whimsical action.... Only two facts are absolutely prerequisite to imposition of the sanction: (1) there must be a failure to comply ... and (2) the failure must be willful.' " (Miranda v. 21st Century Ins. Co. (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 913, 929, quoting Do It Urself Moving & Storage, Inc. v. Brown, Leifer, Slatkin & Berns (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 27, 36.)  To avoid sanctions, the burden of proving that a discovery violation was not willful is on the party on whom the discovery was served. (Cornwall v. Santa Monica Dairy Co. (1977) 66 Cal.App.3d 250, 252- 253.) 

In the alternative, Woeber seeks evidence sanctions against Plaintiffs.

For the same reasons discussed above, the Court declines to impose evidence sanctions against Plaintiffs as responses were ultimately provided.  However, the Court will consider the imposition of monetary sanctions. 

C.     Monetary Sanctions

CCP § 2023.030(a) states: “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. The court may also impose this sanction on one unsuccessfully asserting that another has engaged in the misuse of the discovery process, or on any attorney who advised that assertion, or on both. If a monetary sanction is authorized by any provision of this title, the court shall impose that sanction 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.”

            Woeber requests $2,060 against Plaintiffs and their attorney of record in monetary sanctions.  Although responses were eventually provided, there have been significant delays in complying with the Court’s order and providing the discovery responses by Plaintiffs.  Woeber seeks $2,060 in monetary sanctions, which accounts for 10 hours of time to prepare the motion at $200/hour, plus $60 in filing fees.  The Court grants the request for sanctions in the amount requested. 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER 

Defendant Ian Woeber’s motion for terminating and/or evidence sanctions is denied.  The Court grants in part the motion for monetary sanctions.  Plaintiffs and their counsel of record, jointly and severally, are ordered to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $2,060 to Defendant, by and through counsel, within 20 days of notice of this order.

Defendant shall provide notice of this order.

Warning regarding electronic appearances:  All software for remote or electronic appearances is subject to malfunction based on system weakness and human error, which can originate from any of the multiple parties participating each morning. The seamless operation of the Court’s electronic appearance software is dependent on numerous inconstant and fluctuating factors that may impact whether you, or other counsel or the Court itself can be heard in a particular case. Not all these factors are within the control of the courtroom staff. For example, at times, the system traps participants in electronic purgatories where they cannot be heard and where the courtroom staff is not aware of their presence. If you call the courtroom, please be respectful of the fact that a court hearing is going on, and that the courtroom staff is doing their best to use an imperfect system. If it is truly important to you to be heard, please show up to the courtroom in the normal way. Parking is free or reasonable in Burbank.

DATED:   January 12, 2024                                                   ___________________________

                                                                                          John Kralik

                                                                                          Judge of the Superior Court