Judge Lee S. Arian, Case Number: 22STCV27077, Date: 2024-11-14 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 22STCV27077, Date: 2024-11-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV27077 Hearing Date: November 14, 2024 Dept: 27

Hon. Lee S. Arian, Dept 27

MOTION FOR SANCTIONS

Hearing Date: 11/14/24¿

CASE NO./NAME: 22STCV27077 JORDAN SAUNDERS, et al. vs SETH MEYERS

Moving Party: Defendant Seth Meyers

Responding Party: Plaintiff¿

Notice: Sufficient

Ruling: GRANTED IN PART; DENIED IN PART

Background

Defendant moves the court for terminating sanctions against Plaintiff, alleging discovery abuse due to Plaintiff’s failure to fully comply with the court’s orders issued on November 29, 2023, November 30, 2023, and January 9, 2024. These orders directed Plaintiff to provide responses to Defendant’s Requests for Production, Set One, and Form Interrogatories, Set One; to appear for deposition; and to pay monetary sanctions.

Defendant’s motion cites three alleged violations by Plaintiff:

1. Outstanding Monetary Sanctions: Although Plaintiff has paid the majority of the monetary sanctions, a balance of $2,475 remains unpaid.

2. Incomplete Deposition and Document Production: Plaintiff Heinen appeared for deposition on August 1, 2024. However, Defendant contends that Plaintiff did not produce all requested documents, resulting in the parties stipulating to keep the deposition open. Despite this stipulation, Plaintiff’s counsel has not yet provided dates for the continuation of the deposition.

3. Failure to Respond to Recent Discovery Requests: Plaintiff has not responded to Defendant’s recently served Request for Production, Set Three.

Defendant now seeks terminating sanctions or, alternatively, issue, evidentiary, or additional monetary sanctions against Plaintiff due to these alleged violations of court orders and discovery obligations.

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.)¿“Generally, ‘[a] decision to order terminating sanctions should not be made lightly.¿ But where 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.’” (Los Defensores, Inc. v. Gomez (2014) 223 Cal. App. 4th 377, 390 [citation omitted].)

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.)¿“[T]the trial court has broad discretion in selecting the appropriate sanction, and we must uphold the trial court's determination absent an abuse of discretion.” (Dept. of Forestry & Fire Protection v. Howell (2017) 18 Cal.App.5th 154, 19.)

Discussion

Terminating, issue, and evidentiary sanctions are inappropriate in this instance because Plaintiff has substantially complied with the court’s discovery orders, and there is no evidence of willful noncompliance. Such severe sanctions are reserved for cases of blatant and intentional disregard of court orders, and Plaintiff’s conduct does not rise to this level. The court finds that Plaintiff has made significant efforts to adhere to its prior orders, as follows:

1. Initial Discovery Responses: Defendant does not allege that Plaintiff failed to provide the initial discovery responses required by the court’s November 29 and November 30 orders. Plaintiff’s timely submission of these responses demonstrates adherence to the court’s directives on these matters.

2. Deposition Attendance: Plaintiff produced Heinen for his deposition on August 1, 2024, in compliance with the court's January 9, 2024 order. Although the parties agreed to a second deposition to complete the production of certain supplemental documents, the primary deposition has already been substantially completed. Plaintiff’s compliance in appearing for the deposition shows good faith in engaging with the discovery process.

3. Monetary Sanctions: Plaintiff has paid a substantial portion of the monetary sanctions ordered by the court, which totaled approximately $8,000, with a remaining balance of $2,475 unpaid. While the outstanding amount requires attention, Plaintiff’s partial payments reflect an effort to fulfill the court’s monetary orders, rather than an intentional disregard of them.

The Court finds that Plaintiff’s actions do not demonstrate willful non compliance. The purpose of discovery sanctions is to secure compliance, not to create a “windfall” for a party by placing them in a more favorable position than they would have been if the opposing party had fully complied with the court’s orders and the Civil Discovery Act. Plaintiff’s actions indicate a willingness to cooperate in discovery, making terminating, issue, or evidentiary sanctions excessive under the circumstances.

Although Plaintiff filed an opposition to Defendant's motion, Plaintiff only addressed his failure to timely respond to Meyers’s Request for Production, Set Three, without addressing the issues of outstanding monetary sanctions or the continued deposition, as previously ordered by the court. This omission leaves the Court uncertain as to whether Plaintiff intends to comply with its prior orders to pay the remaining monetary sanctions and to appear for the continued deposition. Consequently, the Court finds it appropriate to impose a monetary sanction to compensate Defendant for the necessity of filing this motion to compel Plaintiff’s compliance.

While the court declines to impose terminating, issue, or evidentiary sanctions at this time, it grants a monetary sanction in the amount of $2,000 against Plaintiff and his attorney, jointly and severally, payable to Defendant within 20 days of this order. Additionally, the court orders Plaintiff to appear for the continued deposition within 20 days and to produce the outstanding documents specified in the notice of deposition and pay the outstanding sanctions in the amount of 2,475.

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.