Judge: Kevin C. Brazile, Case: 22STCV21378, Date: 2023-04-28 Tentative Ruling

Hearing Date: May 25, 2023

Case Name: Melamed v. Krstanovic, et al.

Case No.: 21STCV40853

Matter: Motion for Terminating Sanctions

Moving Party: Plaintiff Shahla Melamed

Responding Party: Unopposed

Notice: OK

Ruling: The Motion is 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. 

On March 3, 2023, the Court granted Plaintiff Shahla Melamed’s motion to compel further responses to her requests for production, sets one and two, nos. 1-5 and 7-45 against Defendants Gabrijel Krstanovic and Seaside Construction Management Company, LLC.  The Court ordered that “Further responses and documents are to be provided within twenty days.”

Plaintiff now seeks terminating sanctions against Defendants Gabrijel Krstanovic and Seaside Construction Management Company, LLC because they never provided supplemental responses.

“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.”].)

No opposition was filed.

The Court, in the exercise of its discretion, will not yet award a terminating sanction.  The Court will, instead, require that Defendants pay an additional $5,000 in sanctions to Plaintiff and provide responses to the subject discovery in 30 days.  If sanctions/responses are not provided in that time, Plaintiff should file a renewed motion for terminating sanctions.

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.