Judge: Kevin C. Brazile, Case: 19STCV38279, Date: 2022-11-21 Tentative Ruling

Hearing Date: November 21, 2022

Case Name: Isaacson, et al. v. Trancas PCH LLC, et al.

Case No.: 18STCV05502

Matter: Motion for Sanctions

Moving Party: Defendant Trancas PCH LLC 

Responding Party: Unopposed

Notice: OK

Ruling: The Motion is granted in part.  The Court will compel further 

responses, which are to be served within thirty days.  The Court awards sanctions in the amount of $1,547.50.  

Moving party to give notice.

If counsel do not submit on the tentative, they are strongly 

encouraged to appear by LACourtConnect rather than in person due to the COVID-19 pandemic. 

On December 3, 2021, the Court granted Defendant Trancas PCH LLC’s motion to compel initial responses to requests for production, set one, from Plaintiff Dean R. Isaacson.  The Court ordered responses without objection and production within 60 days.  

 Defendant contends that, contrary to the Court’s December 2021 Order, Plaintiff asserted numerous objections and withheld thousands of documents.  Defendant also notes that it has had to file other motions to compel, for example as to its special interrogatories, set one.  Defendant Trancas PCH LLC seeks terminating sanctions against Plaintiff.  Alternatively, Defendant seeks for the Court to stay this action while Plaintiff complies with the Court’s order as to requests for production.  Defendant also seeks $6,615 (15.4 hours at $425 per hour, plus $70 in costs) in sanctions. 

Plaintiff did not file an opposition.

“California discovery law authorizes a range of penalties for conduct amounting to ‘misuse of the discovery process.’ ” (Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 967, 991.)  Misuses of the discovery process include “[u]sing a discovery method in a manner that does not comply with its specified procedures” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.010(b)); “[f]ailing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery” (id., subd. (d)); “[m]aking an evasive response to discovery” (id., subd. (f)); and “[d]isobeying a court order to provide discovery” (id., subd. (g).)

Code Civ. Proc. § 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.”  In selecting the appropriate sanction, a trial court “should consider both the conduct being sanctioned and its effect on the party seeking discovery,” and should tailor the sanction to fit the harm caused by the abuse of the discovery process.  (Doppes, supra, 174 Cal.App.4th at p. 992.)  “The trial court cannot impose sanctions for misuse of the discovery process as a punishment.”  (Ibid.)

A terminating sanction “is a proper sanction to punish the failure to comply with a rule or an order only if the court’s authority cannot be vindicated through the imposition of a less severe alternative.”  (Rail Services of America v. State Comp. Ins. Fund (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 323, 331 [concerning dismissal for a plaintiffs’ refusal to comply with discovery]; see also Mileikowsky v. Tenet Healthsystem (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 262, 279-80 [“[W]here 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.”].)

Here, some of Plaintiff’s responses inappropriately contain objections, contrary to the Court’s December 2021 order.  Further, the other responses seem to simply recite instructions for how one can respond to such requests.  (See Knox Decl., Exhibit N [Response: “That you are unable to comply because the requested items no longer exist, or are no longer in your possession. (CCP § 2031.230).You must make a ‘diligent search and reasonable inquiry’ into finding the requested items, and state in your response that you have made this effort.You must also describe what the items were, and explain what happened to them. If known, you must include the name and address of the person or organization in possession of the requested items . . . .”].)  

The request for terminating sanctions, however, is somewhat premature.  The Court understands Defendant’s frustration, but the proper course at this juncture is to compel further responses, which are to be served within thirty days.  

The Court will also award reduced sanctions in the amount of $1,547.50 (3.5 hours at $425 per hour, plus $60 in costs).

The Motion is granted in part as set forth herein.  

Moving party to give notice.

If counsel do not submit on the tentative, they are strongly encouraged to appear by LACourtConnect rather than in person due to the COVID-19 pandemic.