Judge Lynne M. Hobbs, Case Number: 23STCV07545, Date: 2023-11-27 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lynne M. Hobbs, Case: 23STCV07545, Date: 2023-11-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV07545 Hearing Date: January 30, 2024 Dept: 30

SONIA VELAZQUEZ, et al. vs CITY OF LOS ANGELES, et al.

TENTATIVE

Plaintiff’s motion for issue and evidentiary sanctions is CONTINUED to allow Defendant one final opportunity to comply with the Court’s order and provide verified responses to the outstanding discovery at issue.

Plaintiff is ordered to file a supplemental declaration 5 court days prior to the next hearing to inform the Court whether Defendant has complied.

The request for monetary sanctions is DENIED without prejudice.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

Background

On April 5, 2023, Plaintiffs Sonia Velazquez and Brenda Marquez, individually and as successors in interest to Victoria Velasquez (Decedent), filed a Complaint against Defendants City of Los Angeles, and Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles, alleging causes of action wrongful death for dangerous condition of public property, and negligence. Plaintiffs’ Decedent was trapped within her burning apartment, unable to escape, and prevented from receiving rescue. The dangerous conditions were: faulty or malfunctioning electrical and gas units and power sources within the apartment; faulty, inoperable, malfunctioning, or completely absent safety mechanisms within the apartment and out, including mandatory smoke detectors and fire extinguishers; limited and/or completely blocked entrance ways; inoperable and/or completely disabled fire hydrants adjacent to the complex, also owned and controlled by the City of Los Angeles; and blocked and barricaded ingress and egress points to the complex that delayed access by fire department and rescue personnel.

On January 3, 2024, Plaintiff Velasquez filed this motion for issue, evidentiary, and monetary sanctions. On January 23, 2024, Defendant filed an opposition. On January 24, 2024, Plaintiff filed a reply.

Legal Standard

CCP section 2023.030 provides that, "[t]o the extent authorized by the chapter governing any particular discovery method..., the court, after notice to any affected party, person, or attorney, and after opportunity for hearing, may impose... [monetary, evidence, and terminating] sanctions against anyone engaging in conduct that is a misuse of the discovery process...." CCP section 2023.010 provides that "[m]issues of the discovery process include, but are not limited to, the following:... (d) Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery.... (g) Disobeying a court order to provide discovery...."

"The trial court may order a terminating sanction for discovery abuse 'after considering the totality of the circumstances: [the] conduct of the party to determine if the actions were willful; the detriment to the propounding party; and the number of formal and informal attempts to obtain the discovery.'" (Los Defensores, Inc. v. Gomez (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 377, 390 (quoting Lang v. Hachman (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 1225, 1246).) "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, supra, 223 Cal.App.4th at p. 390 (citation omitted).)

"Under this standard, trial courts have properly imposed terminating sanctions when parties have willfully disobeyed one or more discovery orders." (Id. (citing Lang, supra, 77 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1244- 1246); see, e.g., Collisson X Kaplan v. Hartunian (1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 1611, 1617-1622 (terminating sanctions imposed after defendants failed to comply with one court order to produce discovery); Laguna Auto Body v. Farmers Ins. Exchange (1991) 231 Cal App 3d 481, 491 (disapproved on other grounds in Garcia v. McCucchen (1997) 16 Cal.4th 469, 478, n. 4) (terminating sanctions imposed against plaintiff for failing to comply with a discovery order and for violating various discovery statutes).)

Discussion

Plaintiff Velasquez moves for Issue, Evidentiary, and Monetary Sanctions against Defendant Housing Authority on the ground that Defendant failed to comply with the Court's orders compelling it to respond to discovery.

On November 27, 2023, this Court granted Plaintiff Velasquez’s motions to compel responses to request for production, form interrogatories, and special interrogatories, and to deem requests for admissions admitted. The Court ordered Defendant Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles to serve responses within 20 days, and imposed sanctions against Defendant, to be paid within 20 days. (11/27/2023 Minute Order.) On November 29, 2023, Plaintiff provided notice to Defendant regarding the Court order. (11/29/2023 Notice of Entry of Judgment or Order.)

Despite the Court’s Order, Defendants have failed to respond to the Court-ordered discovery. On December 19, 2023, Plaintiff's counsel emailed counsel for Defendant inquiring why the responses and sanctions had not been provided. (Nolan Decl., ¶ 4; Exh. 1.) No response to that inquiry ever came. (Id., ¶ 5.) On December 28, 2023, both a letter was sent and a voicemail was left for each attorney representing Defendant inquiring about the missing responses and sanctions. (Id., Exh. 2.) No response ever came.

Defendant filed an opposition, arguing that on December 21, 2023, ahead of the December 27, 2023 deadline, Defendant’s counsel prepared substantive, code-compliant responses to Plaintiffs’ discovery requests. Defendant’s counsel’s office attempted to serve the discovery responses but the discovery responses were not sent due to a server error. Defendant’s counsel was unaware of the service issue until she returned from vacation on January 2, 2024. (Harwell Decl., ¶ 3.) On January 3, 2024, after Defendant’s counsel returned, Defendant’s counsel forwarded the December 21, 2023 responses and advised of the error. (Harwell Decl., ¶ 5; Exh. A.)

In reply, Plaintiff argues the responses are not verified. And Defendant has still not paid the Court ordered sanctions.

First, Court notes that whether Defendant complied with the Court’s order to pay monetary sanctions is not relevant to the determination of whether terminating sanctions¿should be imposed. A court may not issue a terminating sanction for failure to pay a monetary discovery sanction. ¿(Newland v. Superior Court (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 608, 610, 615.)¿ A monetary sanction order is enforceable as a money judgment under the Enforcement of Judgments Law, CCP §§680.010, et seq. (Id. at 615.)

Second, the Court is inclined to grant the motion for issue or evidentiary sanctions as the responses were not verified. However, the Court will continue this motion to allow Defendant one final opportunity comply with the Court’s order and provide verified responses, as unverified responses are tantamount to no response at all. (Appleton v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632.) Plaintiff is ordered to file a supplemental declaration 5 court days prior to the next hearing to inform the Court whether Defendant has complied.

As for monetary sanctions, the Court notes that responses were ordered within 20 days, and not 30 days. Thus, even if Defendant’s counsel attempted to serve them on December 21, 2023, the responses were still untimely on that date. However, while the Court finds sanctions are warranted due to Defendant failing to timely provide responses, Plaintiff fails to provide adequate notice that monetary sanctions were being sought in the notice of motion. A request for a sanction shall, in the notice of motion, identify every person, party, and attorney against whom the sanction is sought, and specify the type of sanction sought. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.040.) As such, the request for sanctions is denied without prejudice to Plaintiff filing a separate motion for monetary sanctions with proper notice.