Judge Lee S. Arian, Case Number: 22STCV29198, Date: 2023-11-15 Tentative Ruling

This action arises from a motor vehicle accident which occurred on September 19, 2020. On September 8, 2022, Plaintiff William Garcia (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants Adalberto Barba (“Barba”), Olga Mata, and Does 1 to 50, alleging causes of action for: (1) Motor Vehicle and (2) General Negligence.

On May 3, 2023, Defendant Barba filed three separate motions to compel discovery responses. On November 16, 2023, the Court granted the motions and ordered Plaintiff to provide responses to: (1) form interrogatories, (2) special interrogatories, and (3) requests for production and inspection of documents and other tangible things. (11/16/23 Minute Order.) Plaintiff was ordered to provide responses and pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $500.00 within 20 days of the Court’s order. (11/16/23 Minute Order.)

On November 20, 2023, Defendant Barba filed and served a notice of ruling as to the Court’s November 16, 2023 order.

On December 14, 2023, Defendant Barba filed and served the instant motion for terminating sanctions. Defendant Barba seeks an order dismissing the case due to Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s November 16, 2023 order. Defendant Barba contends that Plaintiff failed to provide verified responses within 20 days of the Court’s November 16, 2023 order. Defendant also requests monetary sanctions in the amount of $430.00.

Plaintiff filed and served an opposition brief on December 26, 2023. No reply brief has been filed as of January 9, 2024. Any reply brief was required to have been filed and served at least five court days prior to the hearing. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1005, subd. (b).)

“The discovery statutes evince an incremental approach to discovery sanctions, starting with monetary sanctions and ending with the ultimate sanction of termination.” (Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 967, 992 [citation omitted, internal quotations omitted].) “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.” (Ibid. [citation omitted, internal quotations omitted].) “[C]ontinuing misuses of the discovery process warrant incrementally harsher sanctions until the sanction is reached that will curb the abuse.” (Ibid.) Where discovery violations are “willful, preceded by a history of abuse, and the evidence shows that less severe sanctions would not produce compliance with discovery rules, the trial court is justified in imposing the ultimate sanction.” (Ibid. [citation omitted].) A trial court has broad discretion to impose discovery sanctions, but two facts are generally a prerequisite to the imposition of nonmonetary sanctions. (Biles v. Exxon Mobil Corp. (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1315, 1327.) Where discovery sanctions are requested against a party, there must be a failure to comply with a court order and the failure must be willful. (Ibid.)

California Code of Civil Procedure, Section 2023.030 provides that “[t]he 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.” A misuse of the discovery process “include[s] . . . [d]isobeying a court order to provide discovery.” (Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc., supra, 174 Cal.App.4th 967, 991.)

In support of the motion, Jennifer E. Miller (“Miller”), counsel for Defendant Barba, states that the Court ordered Plaintiff to provide responses to Defendant Barba’s form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and demands for production of documents by December 6, 2023. (Miller Decl., ¶ 2; Exhibit A.) Counsel states that her office has not received Plaintiff’s responses to such discovery. (Id., ¶ 3.)

In opposition to the motion, Plaintiff’s counsel, Vladimir Shagramanov (“Shagramanov”), attests that he was unaware of the order and the unanswered request for discovery until he received Defendant Barba’s motion for terminating sanctions. (Shagramanov Decl., ¶ 6.) Counsel declares that Plaintiff has now fully complied with all discovery requests and provided verified responses. (Id., ¶¶ 7-10; Exhibits 2-4.) Counsel indicates that he is the owner of several law firms and he thought he responded to the discovery in this action. (Id., ¶¶ 2-3.)

The Court finds that terminating sanctions are not warranted at this time. Plaintiff’s counsel indicates that the failure to respond to discovery was due to his large volume of cases and the mistaken belief that a response was served. Defendant Barba has presented no evidence showing that Plaintiff’s failure to timely comply with the Court’s November 16, 2023 order was willful. Moreover, based on the declaration of Plaintiff’s counsel, Plaintiff has now fully complied with the Court’s November 16, 2023 order.

The Court therefore DENIES Defendant Barba’s request for terminating sanctions against Plaintiff.

Defendant Barba requests monetary sanctions in the amount of $430.00 for attorney’s fees and costs incurred for bringing the motion for terminating sanctions.

“A request for sanction shall, in the notice of motion, identify every person, party, and attorney against whom the sanction is sought, and specify the type of sanction sought.” (Sole Energy Co. v. Hodges (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 199, 207.)

Although Defendant Barba indicates that he is seeking sanctions in the amount of $430.00 in the notice of motion, the notice of motion fails to identify against whom monetary sanctions are sought. Defendant Barba has failed to apprise the Court of whether he is seeking monetary sanctions against Plaintiff, and/or Plaintiff’s counsel. Thus, the Court finds that Defendant Barba’s request for monetary sanctions is procedurally improper under Sole Energy Co. v. Hodges, supra, 128 Cal.App.4th 199, 207.

Accordingly, Defendant Barba’s motion for terminating sanctions is DENIED in its entirety.

The motion for terminating sanctions filed by Defendant Barba is DENIED in its entirety.

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