Judge Mark A. Young, Case Number: 22SMCV01106, Date: 2023-07-10 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Mark A. Young, Case: 22SMCV01106, Date: 2023-07-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22SMCV01106 Hearing Date: July 10, 2023 Dept: M

CASE NAME: Valensi Rose PLC v. Meiri, et al.

CASE NO.: 22SMCV01106

MOTION: Motion for Sanctions

HEARING DATE: 7/10/2023

Legal Standard

If a party fails to obey a court order compelling it to provide a discovery response, “the court may make those orders that are just, including the imposition of an issue sanction, an evidence sanction, or a terminating sanction . . . In lieu of or in addition to this sanction, the court may impose a monetary sanction . . ..” (CCP §§ 2030.290(c), 2030.300(e), 2031.300(c), 2031.320(c).) Misuse of the discovery process, which includes disobeying a court order to provide discovery, is conduct subject to sanctions. (CCP § 2023.010(g).) Possible sanctions are:

(a) [A] monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct….

(b) [A]n issue sanction ordering that designated facts shall be taken as established in the action in accordance with the claim of the party adversely affected by the misuse of the discovery process. The court may also impose an issue sanction by an order prohibiting any party engaging in the misuse of the discovery process from supporting or opposing designated claims or defenses.

(c) [A]n evidence sanction by an order prohibiting any party engaging in the misuse of the discovery process from introducing designated matters in evidence.

(d) [A] terminating sanction by one of the following orders:

(1) An order striking out the pleadings or parts of the pleadings of any party engaging in the misuse of the discovery process.

(2) An order staying further proceedings by that party until an order for discovery is obeyed.

(3) An order dismissing the action, or any part of the action, of that party.

(4) An order rendering a judgment by default against that party.

(e) [A] contempt sanction by an order treating the misuse of the discovery process as a contempt of court.

(CCP § 2023.030 [emphasis added].)

The party seeking to impose sanctions need only show the failure to obey earlier discovery orders. (Puritan Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1985) 171 Cal.App.3d 877, 884 [interpreting former statute dealing with “refusal” to comply].) However, numerous cases hold that severe sanctions (i.e., terminating or evidentiary sanctions) for failure to comply with a court order are allowed only where the failure was willful. (See R.S. Creative, Inc. v. Creative Cotton, Ltd. (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 486, 495; Vallbona v. Springer (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 1525, 1545; Biles v. Exxon Mobil Corp. (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1315, 1327.) The burden of proof then shifts to the party seeking to avoid sanctions to establish a satisfactory excuse for his or her conduct. (Corns v. Miller (1986) 181 Cal.App.3d 195, 201; Williams v. Russ (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1215, 1227.)

Analysis

Plaintiff Valensi Rose PLC moves for terminating sanctions against Defendants Shlomo Meiri and Minoo Meiri and for monetary sanctions in the amount of $4,218.00. Plaintiff asserts that Defendants have willfully and intentionally disobeyed the Court's June 16, 2023, discovery orders, exposing Plaintiff to extreme prejudice by forcing Plaintiff to go to trial without any meaningful written discovery responses or any deposition testimony. Plaintiff further notes that Defendants will not be appearing for trial.

The Court notes that Defendants have engaged in discovery abuse. Notably, on June 16, 2023, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motions to compel further discovery responses as to certain form interrogatories (FI) and requests for production of documents (RFP), and to compel Defendants’ attendance at their noticed depositions. The Court also imposed monetary sanctions against Defendants and their former counsel of record. Defendants were served with notice of this ruling by Plaintiff via email and hand delivery.

Defendants willfully failed to obey these discovery orders. On June 20, 2023, when Defendants were ordered to appear at their depositions, Defendants refused to attend. (Lau Decl., ¶7.) Plaintiff's counsel contacted Defendant Shlomo Meiri by telephone and spoke with him after his deposition was set to go forward. After being repeatedly reminded that this was a Court ordered deposition, he told Plaintiff's counsel to "schedule it right" and that Plaintiff's counsel should "do whatever you need to do." (Lau Decl., ¶8, see Exs. 4-6.) It is clear from this record that Defendants have no intention of complying with their discovery obligations, including being deposed, and that the prior imposition of monetary sanctions has had no effect. Additionally, this willful disobedience caused substantive prejudice to Plaintiff’s case. Defendants’ tactics prevented Plaintiff from obtaining relevant discovery prior to the trial on this matter. Defendants failed to justify any of this conduct in opposition to this motion. This discovery abuse alone warrants the requested terminating sanctions to strike out Defendants’ answer and enter default against Defendants.

In addition, Defendants have failed to participate in any joint filing of trial documents as required by the Court’s pre-trial order, failed to appear at both a Court set informal discovery conference (IDC) and mandatory settlement conferences (MSC). Former counsel only appeared at one of the prior MSC dates and for the sole purpose of continuing it. Defendants also emailed Plaintiff’s counsel that they did not intend to appear at trial since they were going to be “out of the country” on July 10, 2023. (Lau Decl., Ex. 6.) Defendants did not inform the Court of this intention or request a trial continuance. If Defendants fail to appear at trial, this would be an additional reason to strike the answer and enter default.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for terminating sanction is GRANTED.

Additionally, monetary sanctions are appropriate for Defendants’ continued discovery abuse. For instance, Defendants failed to attend their court ordered depositions, causing Plaintiff to incur additional and unnecessary attorneys’ fees. Therefore, the Court will grant Plaintiff’s request for sanctions against Defendants in the reduced amount of $3,330.00, jointly and severally, which the Court finds to be a reasonable sanction in light of the record.