Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 22STCV28036, Date: 2023-10-31 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV28036    Hearing Date: October 31, 2023    Dept: 27

Tentative Ruling

Judge Lee S. Arian, Department 27

HEARING DATE:     October 31, 2023                               TRIAL DATE:  February 23, 2024

CASE:                                Vivian Lissett Gonzalez v. Leah Harris Komar, et al.

CASE NO.:                 22STCV28036

MOTION FOR SANCTIONS

MOVING PARTY:               Plaintiff Vivian Lissett Gonzalez

RESPONDING PARTY:     Defendants Leah Harris Komar, et al.

I.          INTRODUCTION

On August 26, 2022, Plaintiff Vivian Lissett Gonzalez initiated this action against Defendants Leah Harris Komar (“Komar”) and Gerald W. Harris for injuries arising from a motor vehicle collision.

            On July 12, 2023, Plaintiff filed motions to compel Defendants’ responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, and to compel Komar’s responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One.  The Court granted Plaintiff’s motions on August 8, 2023, and imposed monetary sanctions.  Defendants were ordered to provide verified, objection-free responses to the discovery and to pay sanctions within 30 days of the Court’s order.  On August 10, 2023, Plaintiff filed and served the Notice of Ruling on Defendants. To date, Defendants have not provided the at-issue discovery responses or paid the sanctions.

            On October 5, 2023, Plaintiff filed this motion for sanctions.  Plaintiff seeks four types of sanctions: (1) issue sanctions preventing Defendants from establishing any of their affirmative defenses; (2) evidentiary sanctions preventing Defendants from offering any evidence in support of their affirmative defenses or in rebuttal to any of Plaintiff’s evidence; (3) terminating sanctions striking Defendants’ Answer and placing them in default; and (4) imposition of further monetary sanctions against Defendants and their counsel of record for the time and costs in bringing this motion.

            Defendants filed an opposition.  Plaintiff replied.

II.        LEGAL STANDARD

            “The court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030, subd. (a).) Discovery sanctions should be appropriate to the dereliction, and should not exceed that which is required to protect the interests of the party entitled to, but denied, discovery.  The trial court has wide discretion in granting discovery orders, and by the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030, it is granted broad, though not unlimited, discretionary powers to enforce its orders. Sanctions the court may impose must be suitable and necessary to enable the party seeking discovery to obtain the objects of the discovery he seeks.  The court, however, may not impose sanctions which are not designed to accomplish the objects of discovery, but to impose punishment.  (Laguna Auto Body v. Farmers Ins. Exchange (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 481, 487; overruled on other grounds in Garcia v. McCutchen (1997) 16 Cal.4th 469, 478, fn. 4.) 

            Under Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030, the court is empowered to impose monetary, issue, evidence, or terminating sanctions for misuse of the discovery process, which includes, but is not limited to, the following: 

(a) Persisting, over objection and without substantial justification, in an attempt to obtain information or materials that are outside the scope of permissible discovery. 

(b) Using a discovery method in a manner that does not comply with its specified procedures. 

(c) Employing a discovery method in a manner or to an extent that causes unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression, or undue burden and expense. 

(d) Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery. 

(e) Making, without substantial justification, an unmeritorious objection to discovery. 

(f) Making an evasive response to discovery. 

(g) Disobeying a court order to provide discovery. 

(h) Making or opposing, unsuccessfully and without substantial justification, a motion to compel or to limit discovery. 

(i) Failing to confer in person, by telephone, or by letter with an opposing party or attorney in a reasonable and good faith attempt to resolve informally any dispute concerning discovery, if the section governing a particular discovery motion requires the filing of a declaration stating facts showing that an attempt at informal resolution has been made.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010.) 

III.      DISCUSSION

Misuse of the discovery process includes failure to respond to an authorized method of discovery or disobeying a court order to provide discovery.¿ (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010, subds. (d), (g), emphasis added.)¿

Here, it is undisputed that Defendants violated the Court’s August 8, 2023, order.  Indeed, Defendants confirm in their opposition that discovery responses have yet to be provided.  Nevertheless, Defendants resist Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions by arguing that (1) Plaintiff has not provided the relevant information to allow Defendants to issue payment for the court-ordered sanctions and (2) Defendants did not oppose Plaintiff’s July 12, 2023, motions because defense counsel admittedly mis-calendared Plaintiff’s initial discovery requests.  Further, defense counsel represents that the discovery responses have been completed and are forthcoming.

Defendants’ first argument is dubious.  Defendants’ failure to provide discovery responses forms the primary basis for the motion, not their failure to pay sanctions.  

Defendants’ second argument, however, is more persuasive.  Given that defense counsel represents having mis-calendared Plaintiff’s initial discovery requests, the Court is inclined to impose monetary sanctions only.  Issue, evidence, or terminating sanctions in this context would be unduly harsh and tantamount to punishing Defendants for their counsel’s neglect.  Such a result would not serve the objects of discovery.[1]  (Laguna Auto Body, supra, 231 Cal.App.3d at p. 487.)  

Accordingly, the motion for issue, evidence, and terminating sanctions is DENIED.  However, if Defendants have not served Plaintiff with their “forthcoming” discovery responses by the time of the hearing for this motion, the Court will grant Plaintiff’s request for issue and evidence sanctions.

Monetary Sanctions

The Court is authorized to impose sanctions for a misuse of the discovery process under Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030.  The court also has the inherent power to ensure the orderly administration of justice and control the litigation before it.  This power derives from its constitutional role and is not dependent on statute.  (Walker v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 257, 267, 279.)

As it is uncontested that Defendants have not served their court-ordered discovery responses, the Court finds sanctions are warranted.  Further, as defense counsel attributes the delay in serving discovery responses to having mis-calendared Plaintiff’s discovery requests, the Court imposes the full requested sanctions of $1,500 against defense counsel only.

III.       CONCLUSION

            The motion for an order imposing issue, evidence, and terminating sanctions is DENIED. 

            The request for monetary sanctions is granted.  Defense counsel is ordered to pay Plaintiff, by and through her counsel, monetary sanctions of $1,500 within 30 days of this order.  The parties are ordered to meet and confer about payment of sanctions.

Moving party to give notice. 

Dated:   October 31, 2023                                         ___________________________________

                                                                                    Lee S. Arian

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court

            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.