Judge: Kevin C. Brazile, Case: 21STCV36925, Date: 2023-07-24 Tentative Ruling

Hearing Date: January 18, 2024

Case Name: Lizarraga v. Total Airport Services, Inc., et al.

Case No.: 21STCV35025

Matter: Motions for Sanctions (2x)

Moving Party: Defendant Total Airport Services, LLC

Responding Party: Plaintiff Maria Lizarraga

Notice: OK

Ruling: The Motions for Sanctions are granted in part.

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. 

This is an employment action.  

On August 2, 2023, the Court granted Defendant Total Airport Services, LLC’s motions to compel further responses from Plaintiff Maria Lizarraga as to its special interrogatories, set one, nos. 1-29 and requests for production, set one, nos. 1-66.

On August 16, 2023, the Court granted Defendant Total Airport Services, LLC’s motion to compel further responses as to its form interrogatories, general and employment. 

Defendant Total Airport Services, LLC now seeks contempt, terminating, evidentiary, and/or monetary sanctions because Plaintiff failed to comply with the Court's August 2, 2023, and August 16, 2023, orders.  Defendant also seeks to compel further responses to the subject discovery.  Two Motions for Sanctions have been filed—one directed at each of the aforementioned orders.  

The basis for the Motions is that, instead of providing substantive responses for all discovery, Plaintiff stated that she would provide responses at a later date for many of the  requests/interrogatories and did not produce any documents.  Defendant also contends that Plaintiff did not serve verifications.  

Plaintiff admits that her responses are inadequate, but states that responses have been delayed “due to the unexpected illness and death of Plaintiff’s counsel’s mother, her father’s Covid-19 diagnosis, communication issues with Plaintiff, and Plaintiff’s counsel’s current medical leave. See, Declaration of Suzanne E. Rand-Lewis.”

“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.”].)

The Court, in the exercise of its discretion, will only (a) compel further substantive responses and production of documents within 20 days for all of the deficient responses at issue and (b) order reduced monetary sanctions in the total amount of $1,500 against Plaintiff and her counsel.  

Defendant also seeks to continue the June 24, 2024, trial date by eight months in order to properly complete discovery.  This will be discussed at the Motion hearing. 

The Motions are 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.