Judge: Kevin C. Brazile, Case: 23STCV25793, Date: 2024-07-11 Tentative Ruling

Hearing Date: July 11, 2024

Case Name: Wetmore v. Bureau Veritas Commodities and Trade, Inc., et al.

Case No.: 22STCV16824

Matter: Motion for Sanctions

Moving Party: Plaintiff David Wetmore

Responding Party: Defendant Bureau Veritas Commodities and Trade, Inc.

Notice: OK

Ruling: The Court awards monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,000; the 

Motion is otherwise 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. 

Plaintiff David Wetmore seeks issue, evidentiary, and monetary sanctions against Defendant Bureau Veritas Commodities and Trade, Inc., contending that Defendant failed to comply with the parties’ April 2023 stipulation as to ten special interrogatories and instead provided non-compliant responses.  Specifically, Plaintiff states, “to most of these interrogatories, Defendant did not substantively respond, but instead merely referred Plaintiff to hundreds of pages of unresponsive documents. Not only does that blatantly fail to comply with what is outlined in the Stipulation and Order, but it is an evasive response to discovery.”  Plaintiff contends that this discovery has been at issue since June 2022.  

“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.)

As an initial matter, Defendant argues that the Motion is untimely.  Defendant’s argument is rejected because Defendant cites only a statute relating to compelling further responses.  This is not a motion to compel further responses.  

The Court has reviewed the parties’ stipulation and the subject responses and finds that while at least some of the responses are non-compliant, they do not warrant issue or evidentiary sanctions.  Rather, Plaintiff should have moved to compel further responses in a timely fashion.

The Court, on the other hand, will award reduced monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,000, particularly as there is a dispute as to whether there was a good faith meet and confer effort.  This is the only relief that will be provided.  The Motion is otherwise 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.