Judge: Kerry Bensinger, Case: 21STCV02647, Date: 2023-01-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV02647    Hearing Date: January 9, 2023    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

I.            INTRODUCTION

On January 22, 2021, plaintiff Gabriel R. Sanchez (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendants Kasra Mizban and Nasser Mizban (collectively, “Defendants”) for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle collision that occurred on October 6, 2019. 

On September 28, 2022, Defendants filed this motion for terminating, issue, and/or monetary sanctions against Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel.  Defendants bring this motion pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030 on the ground that Plaintiff “has repeatedly engaged in conduct that is a misuse of the discovery process by submitting false evidence and/or testimony under penalty of perjury.”  (Motion, 2:10-12.)  Defendants claim Plaintiff has repeatedly misrepresented the status (or existence) of a driver’s license, provided false testimony about his conduct at the scene of the accident, including the reason why he left the scene of the accident, and is concealing and withholding information about third-party witnesses. 

Having considered the supplemental briefs filed on November 18, 2022, and the arguments made at the hearing on December 9, 2022, the Court concludes that terminating sanctions are inappropriate.  The Court also notes that evidence and issue sanctions would also be inappropriate because Defendants failed to identify the particular issues or evidence that they wish to have excluded.  This leaves Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions in the amount of $25,350 which, as Plaintiff points out, is not substantiated because defense counsel provides no explanation for any of the fees and costs incurred, or why Defendants needed to amend their answers or other pleadings. 

Furthermore, as stated in previous tentative rulings, remedies are available to Defendants, including filing a motion to take a second deposition of Plaintiff.  In City of Los Angeles v. PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLC (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 466 (“PricewaterhouseCoopers”), the court of appeal briefly addressed whether a responding party’s false answer in discovery may excuse the propounding party from compliance with a prerequisite to obtain sanctions under a provision of the Discovery Act.  In a footnote, the court noted “as guidance for the parties and for the trial court on remand” that “a party’s false answers in discovery about the merits of an issue in dispute are addressed through the chapter governing requests for admission” and referred to a party’s ability to recover cost-of-proof expenses pursuant to CCP § 2033.420.  (Id., 84 Cal.App.5th at p. 509, n. 7.)  In the future, this provision of the Civil Discovery Act may compensate Defendants for their efforts to chase down Plaintiff’s purported deception.  However, the Court is not inclined to impose sanctions at this time based solely on CCP 2023.030. 

In light of the foregoing, Defendants’ motion for sanctions is DENIED.    

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter.  Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue.  If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.