Judge Lynne M. Hobbs, Case Number: 22STCV29707, Date: 2023-08-24 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lynne M. Hobbs, Case: 22STCV29707, Date: 2023-08-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV29707 Hearing Date: March 20, 2024 Dept: 30

TRACYE JACKSON vs JOSHUA TOLENTINO, et al.

TENTATIVE

Plaintiff Tracye Jackson’s Motion for Monetary Sanctions against Defendants is GRANTED in the reduced amount of $874.15. Moving party to give notice.

Legal Standard

Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290, subdivision (c), provides that the "court shall impose a monetary sanction ... against any party, ... who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to interrogatories, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust." This provision is also included in Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.300, subdivision (c), for an inspection demand.

Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290, subdivision (c), also provides: "If a party then fails to obey an order compelling answers, the court may make those orders that are just, including the imposition of an issue sanction, an evidence sanction, or a terminating sanction under Chapter 7 ( commencing with Section 2023.010). In lieu of or in addition to that sanction, the court may impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 ( commencing with Section 2023.010)."

"California discovery law authorizes a range of penalties for conduct amounting to 'misuse of the discovery process.'" (Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.Appp.4th 967, 991.). In selecting the appropriate sanction, a trial court "should consider both the conduct being sanctioned and its effect on the party seeking discovery," and should tailor the sanction to fit the harm caused by the abuse of the discovery process. (Id., at p. 992.) "The trial court cannot impose sanctions for misuse of the discovery process as a punishment." (Id.)

Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030, subdivision (a) provides: "If a monetary sanction is authorized by any provision of this title, the court shall impose that sanction unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.''

Discussion

Plaintiff moves the Court for an order for monetary sanctions against Defendants Joshua Tolentino and Caring Hearts, Caring Hands in the amount $3,580.70 because there is no substantial justification for Defendants failing to comply with this Court’s orders to respond to discovery. Defendants argue that there was substantial justification.

On December 28, 2023, Defendants served responses, without objections, to the third set of requests for production, with 84 pages of responsive documents the third set of special interrogatories. On January 10, 2024, Defendants’ counsel filed a supplemental declaration, informing the court that he prepared verified Responses consisting of answers without objections to the second set of form interrogatories and served them on Plaintiff’s counsel.

Nevertheless, Courts may award sanctions to a party filing a discovery motion even if the requested discovery is provided after the motion is filed. (Sinaiko v. Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pac. Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 408-09; Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1030(a) ["The court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though . . . the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed"]

Here, Defendants argue that there is substantial justification for opposing the instant motion. First, Defendants suggest that Plaintiff failed to provide Notices for the rulings because counsel only emailed the Notices and they had not consented to electronic service. Nevertheless, Plaintiff states that she also mailed the Notices and had previously communicated with Defendants’ attorneys via email.

Therefore, Notice was valid and results in the untimely service of the responses. Defendants argue that if the Court finds that service was valid, they were only late by 2, 9, and 25 days, respectively. Nevertheless, the Court notes that responses were still late.

Defendants’ additional arguments about his former attorney’s poor representation, his lack of knowledge and limited finances are not substantial justifications for disobeying Court Orders. Defendants were aware since May 17, 2023 that the Insurer denied coverage for the claims alleged by Plaintiff in this action. Their former Insurer attorney did not file his motion to be relieved as counsel until October 20, 2023 which was about five months of delay in seeking a new attorney. While Defendants did not have representation, Defendants did not respond to the discovery requests. The Court notes that a pro se litigant “should be restricted to the same rules of evidence and procedure as is required of those qualified to practice law before our courts; otherwise ignorance is unjust rewarded.” Doran v. Dreyer (1956) 143 Cal.App.2d 289, 299. Further, Defendants argue that they were financially limited, however, they do not cite to any law or facts proving that this arises to substantial justification for disobeying a Court order.

Therefore, the Court finds that sanctions are warranted. Plaintiff seeks sanctions be imposed on Defendants in the amount of $3,087.50 (9.5 hrs times $325/hour) plus $493.20 in costs, for a total of $3,580.70. However, the Court finds that the Plaintiff seeks an excessive amount because the instant motion was simple and straightforward. Further, only 2.5 hours of counsel's time were spent on this motion and a single filing fee of $61.65. (Carney Decl., page page 8:24-27; 8:20-22.) Therefore, the Court reduces the amount to $874.15 which includes $812.50 for 2.5 hours of attorney’s time at a $325 hourly rate and a filing fee of $61.65.

Conclusion

The request for sanctions is granted in part. Sanctions reduced to $874.15.