TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff Carol Steiner, individually, and as Successor Trustee of the Edward F. Hustedt and Eleanor Vallee Hustedt Trust dated October 20, 1991, also known as the Hustedt Inter Vivos Trust U/D/T 10/20/91, and of all Sub-Trusts thereunder’s Motion to Compel the Loan Center’s Compliance with Discovery Order is DENIED.

Plaintiff Carol Steiner, individually, and as Successor Trustee of the Edward F. Hustedt and Eleanor Vallee Hustedt Trust dated October 20, 1991, also known as the Hustedt Inter Vivos Trust U/D/T 10/20/91, and of all Sub-Trusts thereunder, to give notice. 

REASONING

Plaintiff Carol Steiner, individually, and as Successor Trustee of the Edward F. Hustedt and Eleanor Vallee Hustedt Trust dated October 20, 1991, also known as the Hustedt Inter Vivos Trust U/D/T 10/20/91, and of all Sub-Trusts thereunder (“Plaintiff”) moves the Court for an order compelling third party The Loan Center, Inc. (“TLC”) to comply with the Court’s order dated December 8, 2023, requiring TLC to produce documents responsive to Plaintiff’s subpoena for records served on August 31, 2023.

Put simply, the Court cannot issue an order compelling a party to comply with a court order, as it has already done so in issuing the prior order in the first place. Insofar as Plaintiff asks the Court to impose a contempt sanction for TLC’s misuse of the discovery process, Code of Civil Procedure section 1209, subdivision (a), sets forth twelve grounds upon which the Court may find that conduct to constitute contempt of court, including disobedience of an order of the court. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1209, subd. (a)(5).) The punishment for contempt is up to five days’ imprisonment, a fine of up to $1,000 for each contempt, or both. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 1218, subd. (a).) “Civil contempt proceedings are quasi-criminal because of the penalties which may be imposed.” (In re Kreitman (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 750, 754.)

The Court is not inclined to find TLC in contempt of court for failure to provide discovery responses, as this is a drastic response to a failure to comply with discovery obligations. The Court will also not issue another order imposing monetary sanctions, as there is no statutory basis for imposing monetary sanctions for failure to comply with a court order besides a finding of contempt, and the Court is not inclined to so find. While Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.010 provides a basis for imposing sanctions, including terminating, evidence, and monetary sanctions, where a party engages in the misuse of the discovery process, including disobeying a court order to provide discovery is a misuse of the discovery process, Plaintiff has not moved for sanctions under this statute. Accordingly, Plaintiff Carol Steiner, individually, and as Successor Trustee of the Edward F. Hustedt and Eleanor Vallee Hustedt Trust dated October 20, 1991, also known as the Hustedt Inter Vivos Trust U/D/T 10/20/91, and of all Sub-Trusts thereunder’s Motion to Compel the Loan Center’s Compliance with Discovery Order is DENIED.

The Court notes that Defendant Patrick Nangle (“Nangle”) has filed an opposition to the motion asking the Court to provide him with a chronology of events in this action. The Court refers Nangle to the court docket, which lists all events in this action in chronological order. Insofar as Nangle asks the Court to postpone this hearing indefinitely due to his filing a complaint against Plaintiff’s counsel with the State Bar of California, that request is DENIED, as there is no basis for a continuance on this basis.