Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 19NWCV00633, Date: 2023-05-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19NWCV00633    Hearing Date: May 2, 2023    Dept: C

KIM v. S&H BUSINESS MANAGEMENT, INC., et al.

CASE NO.:  19NWCV00633

HEARING:   5/2/23 @ 9:30 AM

#1

TENTATIVE RULING

I.             Plaintiff Kim’s motion for termination sanctions [as to Byung Ha Chang] is DENIED.  No sanctions to either party.

II.            Plaintiff Kim’s motion to compel further responses to requests for termination sanctions [as to S&H Business Management, Inc.] is DENIED.  No sanctions to either party.

Opposing Party to give NOTICE.

Plaintiff Kim moves for terminating sanctions pursuant to CCP § 2023.010 and 2031.230. 

If anyone engages in conduct that is a misuse of the discovery process, the court may impose monetary sanction, issue sanction, evidence sanction, terminating sanction, and contempt sanction. (CCP § 2023.030.)  The sanctions the court may impose are such as are suitable and necessary to enable the party seeking discovery to obtain the objects of the discovery he seeks, but the court may not impose sanctions which are designed not to accomplish the objects of discovery but to impose punishment. (Laguna Auto Body v. Farmers Ins. Exchange (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 481, 487.)  A prerequisite to the imposition of the dismissal sanction is that the party has willfully failed to comply with a court order. (Ibid.) Terminating sanctions should only be ordered when there has been previous noncompliance with a rule or order and it appears a less severe sanction would not be effective.  (Link v. Cater (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 1315, 1326.)  A terminating sanction issued solely because of a failure to pay a monetary sanction is never justified.  (Newland v. Sup.Ct. (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 608, 615.)

On September 6, 2022, this court ordered Defendants to provide supplemental responses.  On January 5, 2023, the court granted Plaintiff’s motion for monetary sanctions in the sum of $1,000.00. 

The court finds that terminating sanctions are not warranted because Defendants served supplemental responses that complied with the court’s September 6, 2022 Order.  (Choi Decl., ¶¶ 6, 8-11.)  Defendants declared under oath that they did not have anything further in their possession.  Defendants’ meet and confer letter dated February 9, 2023 further identified the contact information of the agency that seized the property.  (Choi Decl., ¶ 11, Ex. E.)

Plaintiff claims that Defendants did not produce receipts that Plaintiff obtained from third parties.  (Operini Decl., ¶¶ 5-7.)  The court does not find that Defendants acted willfully.  Defendants submitted redacted documents.  If plaintiff wanted production of the redactions or if Plaintiff was unsatisfied with the responses, the proper vehicle to obtain “further” responses is a motion to compel further responses.

Additionally, Plaintiff references and conflates a discovery order in the related Petition action.  The discovery in that action has been addressed, and it is irrelevant to the current motion.  Here, the court does not find that Defendants’ conduct is so egregious that it warrants a dismissal sanction. 

Accordingly, the motions for terminating sanctions are DENIED.  Plaintiff is ordered to further meet and confer on Defendants’ latest responses served on March 22, 2023.

Further monetary sanctions are DENIED.