Judge Lee S. Arian, Case Number: 22STCV13267, Date: 2023-11-14 Tentative Ruling

On April 21, 2022, Plaintiff, Erik Denton (“Plaintiff”), individually, and as the Successor-in-Interest to Joanna Denton Carrillo (“Joanna”), Terry Denton Carrillo (“Terry”), and Sierra Denton Carrillo (“Sierra”), filed this wrongful death and survivorship action against Defendants, City of Los Angeles (“City”) and County of Los Angeles, arising from the death of Plaintiff’s three children, Joanna, Terry, and Sierra, at the hands of their mother, Liliana Carrillo.

On August 30, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel Further Answers to Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Production of Documents and a Motion to Compel Police Officer Personnel Files (the “Pitchess motion”). On October 25, 2023, City filed an opposition. On November 8, 2023, Plaintiff filed a reply.

On November 14, 2023, the Motion to Compel Further Responses came before the Court for hearing. The Court adopted its tentative ruling granting Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses but continued that motion on the issue of sanctions and continued the Pitchess Motion, ordering further briefing on those issues.

The Court shall generally issue monetary sanctions for reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred in connection with bringing motions to compel. (C.C.P. §§2030.290(c), 2031.300(c).) If the court finds that a party has unsuccessfully made or opposed such a motion, the court “shall impose a monetary sanction . . . unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (c), 2031.300, subd. (c).)

Here, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request to compel further responses. As such, sanctions against Defendant is mandatory absent Defendant’s showing that they acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make sanctions unjust. While the Court sympathizes with Defendant’s counsel’s workload and bureaucratic challenges (e.g., the wishes of criminal prosecutors), the Defendant fails to identify any circumstance that would make imposition of sanctions unjust, nor does it appear that Defendant acted with substantial legal justification in withholding further response and opposing the motion to compel further responses. As such, the Court hereby awards reasonable sanctions in the amount of $6,500.

Having read and considered the ordered additional briefing, the Court grants an in camera review of the personnel files of the 12 officers identified in Plaintiff’s Pitchess Motion (see Plaintiff’s Memo of Points and Authorities in Support of Pitchess Motion, pp. 9-11).

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Requests for Production of Documents is GRANTED. The request for monetary sanctions is GRANTED in the amount of $6,500 against Defendant City and Defendant City’s counsel.

The Court will hold an in camera review of the LAPD personnel files as the first step in the Pitchess motion.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter. Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue. If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.

Hon. Lee S. Arian

Judge of the Superior Court