Judge: Jon R. Takasugi, Case: 22STCV05108, Date: 2023-04-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV05108    Hearing Date: April 11, 2023    Dept: 17

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 17

            Plaintiff’s Motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.  Sanctions are imposed against Defendant and its counsel of record, jointly and severally, in the amount of $2,817.75.

            On February 9, 2022, Plaintiff Raffaella Macor Garcia (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint alleging causes of action for violation for the Song Beverly Act against Defendants Kia America, Inc. and Kia of Cerritos.

            Plaintiff moves the Court for terminating sanctions, or in the alternative evidentiary, issue, and monetary sanctions against Defendant Kia America, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant”).

Legal Standard

If a party fails to comply with a court order compelling discovery responses, the court may impose monetary, issue, evidence, or terminating sanctions.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290(c) (interrogatories); § 2031.300(c) (demands for production of documents).)  ¿¿ 

“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.)  “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.’”  (Id. at 390.)¿¿ 

“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.”   (Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.030(a).) 

“The court may impose an evidence sanction by an order prohibiting any party engaging in the misuse of the discovery process from introducing designated matters in evidence.”  (Code Civ. Proc.¿§ 2023.030(c).)¿ 

            “The court may impose an issue sanction ordering that designated facts shall be taken as established in the action in accordance with the claim of the party adversely affected by the misuse of the discovery process. The court may also impose an issue sanction by an order prohibiting any party engaging in the misuse of the discovery process from supporting or opposing designated claims or defenses.”  (Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.030(b).)  

It is a commonly stated axiom that discovery sanctions “should be appropriate to the dereliction and should not exceed that which is required to protect the interests of the party entitled to but denied discovery.”¿¿(Deyo v. Kilbourne¿(1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 793.)  Discovery sanctions are not to be imposed for punishment, but instead are used to encourage fair disclosure of discovery to prevent unfairness resulting for the lack of information.¿ (Electronic Funds Solutions, LLC v. Murphy¿(2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 1161, 1183;¿McGinty v. Sup. Ct.¿(1994) 26 Cal.App.4th 204, 214;¿Midwife v. Bernal¿(1988) 203 Cal.App.3d 57, 64, superseded on other grounds as stated in¿Kohan v. Cohan¿(1991) 229 Cal.App.3d 967, 971.  Before issuing a sanction, a trial court “should consider both the conduct being sanctioned and its effect on the party seeking discovery and, in choosing a sanction, should attempt to tailor the sanction to the harm caused by the withheld discovery.”  (Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 967, 992; Caryl Richards, Inc. v. Superior Court (1961) 188 Cal.App.2d 300, 304.)

Discussion

            Plaintiff moves the Court for terminating sanctions, or in the alternative evidentiary, issue, and monetary sanctions against Defendant because of Defendant’s failure to provide further responses to Form Interrogatories (Set One) and Special Interrogatories (Set One) (collectively the “Interrogatories”) in accordance with the Court’s October 17, 2022 order (the “Order”).  (Saeedian Decl., ¶10.)  On December 8, 2022, Plaintiff sent an email to defendant regarding their failure to provide further responses to the Interrogatories in accordance with the Order.  (Id. at ¶ 8.)  Defendant responded to the email that same day and apologized for the delay, but ultimately failed to provide responses.  (Id., Exh. 7.)  One week later Plaintiff sent a follow-up email, and Defendant failed to respond to that email.  (Id. at ¶ 9.) 

            In Opposition, Defendant asks the Court to deny the Motion because it provided responses to the Interrogatories.  Defendant represents that further responses for the Interrogatories were supposed to be provided, but Defendant did not realize responses were not provided until it came time to draft the Opposition for this Motion.  (Chinery Decl., ¶ 4.)  After discovering that responses were not served to the Interrogatories, Defendant served responses immediately.  (Id. at ¶ 5.)

The Court finds that Defendant’s conduct does not warrant terminating sanctions, evidentiary sanctions, or issue sanctions, at this time, as this is the first Court order that Defendant failed to comply with.  There is also no evidence that Defendant was acting in bad faith, and Defendant has since provided the further responses.  While Defendant’s actions of failing to comply with the Court’s Order is troubling, the Court finds that the appropriate sanction against Defendant is monetary sanctions, as Plaintiff’s were forced to file the instant Motion to get Defendant to comply with its discovery obligation and the Court’s Order.

            Plaintiff asks the Court to impose $6,096.25 in sanctions against Defendant and its counsel of record.  The sanctions are composed of the $2,817.75 (representing 5.5 hours of work at a rate of $500/hr, plus $1 reservation fee, $60 filing fee, and $6.75 electronic filing fee) in attorney’s fees and costs for the instant Motion, and $3,279 (representing $3,211.25 in attorney’s fees, plus $1 reservation fee, $60 filing fee, and $6.75 electronic filing fee) in attorney’s fees and costs for the motion to compel further responses to the Interrogatories.  The Court finds that sanctions are reasonable against Defendant and its counsel of record in the amount of $2,817.75.  Thus, sanctions are imposed against Defendant and its counsel of record, jointly and severally, in the amount of $2,817.75.

Dated: April     , 2023

   Hon. Jon R. Takasugi
   Judge of the Superior Court

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at smcdept17@lacourt.org by 4 p.m. the day prior as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative.  If all parties to a motion submit, the court will adopt this tentative as the final order.  If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar. 

            Due to Covid-19, the court is strongly discouraging in-person appearances.  Parties, counsel, and court reporters present are subject to temperature checks and health inquiries, and will be denied entry if admission could create a public health risk.  The court encourages the parties wishing to argue to appear via L.A. Court Connect.  For more information, please contact the court clerk at (213) 633-0517.  Your understanding during these difficult times is appreciated.