Judge Lee S. Arian, Case Number: 19STCV41365, Date: 2024-01-31 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 19STCV41365, Date: 2024-01-31 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV41365 Hearing Date: April 15, 2024 Dept: 27

Hon. Lee S. Arian

Department 27

Tentative Ruling

Hearing Date: 4/15/2024 at 1:30 p.m.

Case No./Name: 19STCV41365 RICHARD FEI, et al. vs ANN CHAN, et al.

Motion: MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS

Moving Party: Plaintiffs Richard Fei and Alice Fei

Responding Party: Defendant Ann Chan

Notice: Sufficient

Ruling: MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS IS DENIED.

Background

On November 18, 2019, Plaintiffs filed the present auto accident case. On January 31, 2024, the Court granted Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Defendant Ann Chan’s Deposition and awarded monetary sanctions. Pursuant to the Court order, Plaintiffs served an amended notice of deposition on Defendant for a deposition on February 26, 2024. Defendant did not appear at her deposition, and an Affidavit of Non-Appearance was obtained. Plaintiffs now move the Court for terminating sanctions against Defendant for her violation of the Court order. Defendant filed an opposition indicating that Defendant did not attend her deposition due to her deteriorating mental state and that Defendant has stipulated to liability and is only contesting Plaintiffs’ damages in exchange for Plaintiffs forgoing Defendant's deposition. Defendant is also in the process of appointing a guardian ad litem to handle this case on her behalf. Plaintiffs did not file a reply contesting Defendant’s contentions.

Legal Standard

The Civil Discovery Act provides for an escalating and “incremental approach to discovery sanctions, starting with monetary sanctions and ending with the ultimate sanction of termination.” (Lopez v. Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York, Inc.¿(2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 566, 604.)¿Discovery sanctions should be appropriate to and commensurate with the misconduct, and they “should not exceed that which is required to protect the interests of the party entitled to but denied discovery.” (Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc.¿(2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 967, 992.) “If a lesser sanction fails to curb misuse, a greater sanction is warranted: continuing misuses of the discovery process warrant incrementally harsher sanctions until the sanction is reached that will curb the abuse.” (Ibid.; see also, e.g.,¿Mileikowsky v. Tenet Healthsystem¿(2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 262, 279-280.)

The primary purpose of discovery sanctions is to obtain compliance with the Civil Discovery Act and the Court’s orders. It is not to punish. (Newland v. Super. Ct.¿(1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 608, 613;¿Ghanooni v. Super Shuttle of Los Angeles¿(1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 256, 262.) A discovery sanction should not create a “windfall” for a party or place a party in a better position than it would have been if the opposing party had simply complied with its obligations under the Court’s orders and the Civil Discovery Act. (Rutledge v. Hewlett-Packard Co.¿(2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 1164, 1194; see also 2 Weil & Brown, California Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2023), ¶¶¿8:2214-2220.)

Analysis

Termination is not warranted under the facts of the present case. This is Defendant's first violation of a court order by not attending her deposition on February 26, 2024. Plaintiffs did not demonstrate that Defendant had a history of prior violations of court orders or discovery abuses. The Civil Discovery Act mandates an "incremental approach to discovery sanctions, starting with monetary sanctions and ending with the ultimate sanction of termination." (Lopez v. Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York, Inc. (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 566, 604.) It is inappropriate for the Court to impose the ultimate sanctions upon the first violation of a court order.

From Defendant’s counsel’s declaration, the Court notes Defendant’s deteriorating mental condition and does not consider her non-attendance at the deposition to be willful. Defendant’s attorney has stipulated to liability and only contests damages in exchange for Plaintiffs forgoing Defendant’s deposition, which Plaintiff has agreed to. Therefore, there will be no future violations of any court order to attend her depositions. Moreover, sanctions "should not exceed that which is required to protect the interests of the party entitled to but denied discovery." (Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 967, 992.) Since liability has already been stipulated, there is no need to impose further sanctions to protect Plaintiffs' interests from the denied deposition. Thus, the present motion is DENIED.

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:

If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the court at sscdept27@lacourt.org with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number. The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting.

Unless all parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument. You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue.

If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion without leave.