Judge Lynne M. Hobbs, Case Number: 23STCV03468, Date: 2024-07-17 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lynne M. Hobbs, Case: 23STCV03468, Date: 2024-07-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV03468 Hearing Date: July 17, 2024 Dept: 61

IMMIGRANT RIGHTS DEFENSE COUNCIL, LLC., A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY vs JO BOG YOO

TENTATIVE

Plaintiff Immigrant Rights Defense Council, LLC’s Motion for Discovery Sanctions against Defendant Jo Bog Yoo GRANTED in part. Terminating sanctions are DENIED, but monetary sanctions are awarded against Defendant in the amount of $3,310.00, payable to Plaintiff within 30 days.

Further failure by Defendant to obey this Court’s discovery orders may result in his answer being stricken and default being entered against him.

Plaintiff to provide notice.

DISCUSSION

I. MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS

The court may impose terminating sanctions, include an order striking pleadings, and order dismissing an action, or an order rendering judgment by default against a party, for conduct that is a misuse of the discovery process. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030.) This conduct include “[f]ailing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery,” and “[d]isobeying a court order to provide discovery.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010.)

Ultimate discovery sanctions are justified where there is a willful discovery order violation, a history of abuse, and evidence showing that less severe sanctions would not produce compliance with discovery rules. (Van Sickle v. Gilbert (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1495, 1516.) Dismissal is a drastic measure, and 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] penalty as severe as dismissal or default is not authorized where noncompliance with discovery is caused by an inability to comply rather than willfulness or bad faith.” (Brown v. Sup. Ct. (1986) 180 Cal.App.3d 701, 707.)

Plaintiff Immigrant Rights Defense Council, LLC (Plaintiff) seeks terminating and monetary sanctions against Defendant Jo Bog Yoo (Defendant) for the failure to comply with this court’s prior orders governing discovery. The relevant facts are as follows.

This court on June 8, 2023, granted Plaintiff’s motion to compel responses to requests for production from Defendant, with an order of monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,578.35. On October 4, 2023, this court granted Plaintiff’s motion to compel compliance with the prior order, denying their request for terminating and monetary sanctions against Defendant. On February 15, 2024, this court granted Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses against Defendant, denying monetary sanctions. The reasoning for this last order was, although Defendant had provided responses, these responses consisted of terse declarations that the requests were “not applicable” to him, or else that he did not have any responsive documents because he was not an immigration consultant — notwithstanding that the requests to which he offered this response did not depend on his status as an immigration consultant.

Plaintiff contends that, since this last order, Defendant has failed to provide further responses as ordered by the court. (Medvei Decl. ¶ 5.)

Defendant in response does not contest that he has failed to provide the ordered responses, and offers arguments related to the merits of the wider case. (Response at pp. 1–2.)

Monetary sanctions are appropriate. To get Defendant to provide responses to the requests for production, at all, required two court orders and one order of monetary sanctions. No sanctions have yet been ordered with respect to the sufficiency of those responses, and the court shall do so here. Plaintiff seeks $3,310.00 in sanctions against Defendant, representing 6.5 hours of attorney work at $500 per hour, plus a $60 filing fee. (Medvei Decl. ¶¶ 7–9.) Terminating sanctions, in which Defendant’s answer would be stricken, are not presently warranted, as lesser sanctions must be given the opportunity to have their effect before more drastic remedies are employed. (Link, supra, 60 Cal.App.4th at p. 1326.) However, the Court warns Defendant that further failure to comply with this Court’s discovery orders may result in default being entered against him.

The motion is therefore GRANTED in part. Terminating sanctions are DENIED, but monetary sanctions are awarded against Defendant in the amount of $3,310.00.