Judge: Mark A. Young, Case: 19SMCV02159, Date: 2022-12-13 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 19SMCV02159 Hearing Date: December 13, 2022 Dept: M
CASE NAME: Hdevelopment, et al., v. Schimmel, et al.
CASE NO.: 19SMCV02159
MOTION: OSC re Monetary and Evidentiary Sanctions
HEARING DATE: 12/13/2022
On November 22, 2022, the Court issued its order as to Plaintiff’s Motion for Order Striking Stephen Biafora's Answer and Entering Default. The Court ordered supplemental discovery responses due by December 2, 2022. The Court further set an OSC re (1) compliance with supplemental discovery responses; (2) compliance with payment of sanctions ($2,660 plus $750/day until compliant responses served); and (3) ruling on terminating/evidentiary sanctions on December 13, 2022. Plaintiff filed its supplemental brief as to the further discovery responses on December 7, 2022. Defendant Biafora filed his reply on December 9, 2022.
In the November 22, 2022, order, the Court withheld from ruling on the requested sanction until Biafora complied with the outstanding discovery obligations. The Court also withheld from imposing an evidentiary sanction until his discovery obligations were completed, but did inform counsel that the Court was considering precluding Defendant Biafora from presenting defenses to Plaintiff’s quantum meruit claim. The ruling came after a string of discovery abuses by Defendant Biafora, which led the Court to conclude that Biafora and his counsel had abandoned their discovery obligations despite Court orders and an agreement to provide such responses.
The Court has reviewed Defendant Biafora’s supplemental discovery responses along with the parties’ supplemental filings. Defendant Biafora’s willful abuse of the discovery process continues. It appears that Biafora simply pasted virtually the same answer into every response even when the answer was facially nonresponsive to the questions asked. The responses to Form Interrogatory 15.1 and the affirmative defenses illustrates Biafora’s approach, with the answers being utterly nonresponsive to the question. It appears that counsel placed no effort into answering these questions, which the Court finds truly shocking after the prior orders, hearings, and discovery conference. Responses to the other form interrogatories fare little better. The Court concludes that defendant Biafora and his counsel continue to willfully fail to comply with their discovery obligations.
As such, the Court orders the following sanctions: (1) Defendant Biafora shall not present any evidence at trial that was responsive to the relevant form interrogatories but not identified or produced, which includes the email referenced throughout the responses; and (2) Defendant Biafora shall not present any affirmative defenses against the quantum meruit claim. As to monetary sanctions, while Defendant did pay $2,660, he (and counsel) were further ordered to pay $750/day until the responses were provided. They were not provided until December 2, 2022. If the responses had been code compliant, Defendant and counsel would owe an additional $8,250 in monetary sanctions. They were not, and Plaintiff is technically correct that the $750/day sanction continues to be incurred in the approximately amount of $17,250. The purpose of the monetary sanctions, however, was to ensure prompt compliance. As such, it failed and the Court has resorted to evidentiary sanctions. The Court, however, still believes additional monetary sanctions against Defendant and his counsel are warranted in addition to the evidentiary sanctions. Thus, the Court imposes an additional $3,500 in monetary sanctions against Defendant and his counsel, jointly and severally, payable within 30 days to Plaintiff.