Judge: Kevin C. Brazile, Case: 23STCV08547, Date: 2024-01-30 Tentative Ruling

Hearing Date: January 30, 2024

Case Name: Getz v. Clear Vision Management, LLC, et al.

Case No.: 22STCV32187

Matter: Motion for Sanctions

Moving Party: Defendant Clear Vision Management, LLC

Responding Party: Plaintiff Jordan Getz

Notice: OK

Ruling: The Motion is denied.

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 matter.

On October 30, 2023, the Court issued a minute order stating, “Plaintiff Jordan Getz' deposition shall take place on November 15, 2023, commencing at 9:30 AM at a location set by defendants pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.250(a) and will run from day to day until completed.”  

Defendant Clear Vision Management, LLC now seeks terminating, evidentiary, and/or monetary sanctions because Plaintiff terminated his deposition early in Denver due to his counsel’s medical condition and has not offered dates to resume the deposition.

Plaintiff contends that his counsel was suffering from a medical issue that required him to return to LA and obtain an EEG and at the same time co-counsel’s wife was facing a terminal illness and ultimately passed away.  Plaintiff’s counsel states that they are amenable to offering dates for a Zoom deposition.

“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.”].)

Given that Plaintiff is willing to proceed with a deposition and the delay was caused by medical issues, the Court will not, at this time, award any sanctions.  The Court, however, will order that Plaintiff’s deposition take place within 20 days.

The Motion is denied.

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.