Judge Lee S. Arian, Case Number: 22STCV18977, Date: 2024-02-13 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 22STCV18977, Date: 2024-02-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV18977 Hearing Date: April 10, 2024 Dept: 27

HON. LEE S. ARIAN

DEPARTMENT 27

TENTATIVE RULING

Hearing Date: 4/10/2024 at 1:30 p.m.

Case No./Name: 22STCV18977 WHITNEY KIM ANH TRUONG vs CHA HEE CHOI

Motion: MOTION FOR SANCTIONS

Moving Party: Plaintiff

Responding Party: Unopposed

Notice: Sufficient

Ruling: MOTION FOR SANCTIONS IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART

Legal Standard

“To the extent authorized by the chapter governing any particular discovery method or any other provision of this title, the court, after notice to any affected party, person, or attorney, and after opportunity for hearing, may impose the following sanctions against anyone engaging in conduct that is a misuse of the discovery process: ... (b) The court may impose an issue sanction ordering that designated facts shall be taken as established in the action in accordance with the claim of the party adversely affected by the misuse of the discovery process. The court may also impose an issue sanction by an order prohibiting any party engaging in the misuse of the discovery process from supporting or opposing designated claims or defenses. (c) The court may impose an evidence sanction by an order prohibiting any party engaging in the misuse of the discovery process from introducing designated matters in evidence."¿¿(Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030.) “Misuses of the discovery process include, but are not limited to, the following: ... (d) Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery. ... (g) Disobeying a court order to provide discovery."¿¿(Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010.)

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.)

Factual Background and Analysis

On February 13, 2024, the Court heard and granted Plaintiff's motion to compel further responses due to Defendants’ refusal to produce a privilege log for responses objected to on the basis of the attorney work product doctrine. The Court ordered Defendants to provide further responses and pay sanctions within twenty (20) days of the hearing, setting a deadline of March 4, 2024. Despite this order, Defendants failed to deliver further responses or pay the sanctions by the specified deadline. Subsequently, the parties met and conferred. On May 8, 2024, Defendants paid the sanctions and communicated that they were “finalizing” a privilege log and further responses, with expectations to have verifications by Monday, March 11, 2024. However, on May 12, 2024, Defendant sent unverified responses, leading Plaintiff to file the current motion. Defendant did not submit an opposition.

It is undisputed that Defendants were late in complying with the Court’s order to provide further responses and to pay sanctions. Nevertheless, Defendants did substantially comply with the Court’s order by providing the responses and payment to Plaintiff. More importantly, Defendants produced the privilege log, addressing the central issue of the motion to compel further. Plaintiff also did not present any evidence of Defendants’ prior violations of court orders. Therefore, the Court concludes that imposing evidentiary and issue sanctions under the circumstances would not be consistent with the incremental approach to discovery sanctions prescribed by the Civil Discovery Act, which starts with monetary sanctions and ends with the ultimate sanction of termination. (Lopez v. Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York, Inc. (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 566, 604.)

That being said, the further responses served by Defendants contain factual allegations that required their verifications, and no verifications were provided before the filing of the present motion. Defendants did not file an opposition explaining why verifications were not served by the court-ordered deadline or before Plaintiff filed the present motion. It is also uncertain if verifications were provided after the motion was filed but prior to the current hearing. Due to Defendants’ failure to provide the required verifications, Plaintiff was compelled to incur attorney's fees by filing the current motion. Under these circumstances, the Court deems monetary sanctions to be appropriate.

Plaintiff has requested attorney’s fees in the amount of $4,800.80. However, given the simplicity of the issues and the absence of an opposition, the Court exercises its discretion and adjusts the sanction amount to $2,000.00.

Accordingly, the Court orders Defendants to provide verification to their further responses to Plaintiff’s request for production, set one, served on March 12, 2024, within 20 days of today. Additionally, the Court ORDERS Defendants and their counsel, jointly and severally, to pay sanctions of $2000 to Plaintiff within 20 days of today’s date.

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.