Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 23STCV05037, Date: 2025-01-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV05037    Hearing Date: January 9, 2025    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

Background

On March 7, 2023, Plaintiff filed the action against Defendants Joseph Anthony Corrado and Lyft.

In April 2024, Plaintiff first issued a notice for Defendant Corrado's deposition. The deposition notice was amended multiple times, and defense counsel repeatedly represented that they were having difficulty communicating with Defendant.

On October 18, 2024, the Court granted Plaintiff's Motion to Compel and ordered $1,500 in sanctions against Defendant Corrado, payable within 20 days.

On November 7, 2024, Plaintiff issued a second amended deposition notice for November 18, 2024.

On November 18, 2024, Plaintiff proceeded with the deposition as noticed. Defense counsel appeared, but Defendant Corrado did not. Plaintiff obtained a certificate of non-appearance and incurred $770.50 in costs.

On November 20, 2024, defense counsel stated that Defendant Corrado had agreed to comply with discovery but did not provide any dates for the deposition.

On November 22, 2024, Plaintiff followed up on the deposition dates and sanctions payment, but Defendant Corrado has neither provided dates nor paid the ordered sanctions.

Plaintiff now moves the Court for monetary, issue, or terminating sanctions.

Defense counsel, in opposition, explains that after the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendant’s deposition on October 18, 2024, multiple attempts were made to contact Defendant to obtain his availability, but these efforts were unsuccessful. Defense counsel subsequently informed Defendant’s insurance adjuster of the need for intervention.

On November 20, 2024, Defendant emailed defense counsel, indicating that he would participate in discovery, including his deposition. Relying on this representation, defense counsel resumed efforts to secure deposition dates.

On December 6, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Terminating Sanctions and Monetary Sanctions. Despite renewed attempts, defense counsel was still unable to reach Defendant. Defense counsel again notified the insurance adjuster of the ongoing communication issues and filed a motion to be relieved as counsel to be heard on January 29, 2025. Trial is currently set for April 2, 2025.

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].) 

Discussion

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.) 

The circumstances here do not yet warrant a terminating sanction for the following reasons: (1) courts are instructed to employ an incremental approach to discovery sanctions, beginning with monetary sanctions and escalating to the ultimate sanction of termination only if necessary. (Lopez v. Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York, Inc. (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 566, 604.) This is Plaintiff’s first motion for sanctions pertaining to Defendant’s violation of a court order. The Court is hesitant to employ terminating sanctions as its initial sanction; (2) Defendant has alleged that the insurance adjuster has been informed about the ongoing lack of communication and the need for intervention. Given the possibility that the insurance adjuster may intervene, it cannot be said that the case has been completely abandoned by the defense.

However, Plaintiff’s repeated failure to sit for his deposition warrants more than just monetary sanctions again.  Without such deposition, Plaintiff cannot fairly assess any claim that Defendant has regarding liability.  Accordingly, the Court grants issue sanctions and hereby deems Defendant to have admitted liability.             The Court further imposes monetary sanctions for the necessity of filing the present motion. Given defense counsel’s demonstrated effort to diligently communicate with Defendant Corrado, the Court finds it appropriate to impose monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,500 against Defendant Joseph Anthony Corrado only payable to Plaintiff within 20 days of today.

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’s 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