Judge: Mark C. Kim, Case: 20LBCV00552, Date: 2022-08-09 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 20LBCV00552 Hearing Date: August 9, 2022 Dept: S27
1. Background
Facts
Plaintiffs, Kathleen and Amir “Tony”
Ladan filed this action against Defendants, Gail Blanton, Roger N. Blanton, Jason
Carroll, and their Trust for violation of UNRUH, racial harassment and
discrimination, and related claims arising out of Plaintiffs’ landlord/tenant
relationship. Plaintiffs allege
Defendants have been engaged in illegal means to attempt to drive Plaintiffs
out of their home.
Plaintiffs filed their complaint on
12/21/20. Defendants responded by way of
demurrer, and Plaintiffs filed an FAC prior to the hearing on 6/11/21. Defendants again demurred, and on 2/24/22,
the Court sustained the demurrers in part and overruled them in part. On 3/22/22, Defendants filed answers.
2. Motions
to Compel Further Responses
Plaintiffs propounded discovery on Defendants on 6/18/21. Defendants served responses on 8/16/21. Plaintiffs emailed to request verifications,
which Defendants served on 9/07/21. In
the fall of 2021, the parties met and conferred, and Defendants suggested
waiting until after hearing on demurrer to continue the meet and confer
process. After the 2/242/22 hearing,
Plaintiffs sent additional meet and confer correspondence; Defendants refused
to supplement their responses. Plaintiffs
then wrote and agreed to narrow their requests, and Defendants again indicated
they were standing by their responses and would not supplement. Counsel met and conferred telephonically on
4/21/22, and agreed to some supplements, but did not agree concerning RPDs 39
and 40 and SROG 1; Defendants did not, however, serve supplements in compliance
with the parties’ agreement to do so.
Plaintiffs filed their moving papers on 7/12/22. On 7/26/22, the parties filed a joint
stipulation, pursuant to which they agreed that Defendants served supplemental
responses subsequent to the filing of the motions, such that sanctions are the only
issue remaining for determination. Defendants
filed timely opposition to the motions, and Plaintiffs filed a timely reply to the
opposition.
The Code requires imposition of sanctions if the Court grants the motion
unless the opposing party acted with good faith and/or substantial
justification. Defendants argue sanctions
should not be imposed because (a) the motions lack substantive merit, (b) any
sanctions would be punitive in nature, and (c) the sanctions sought are
excessive.
Defendants’ first argument is that the motions lack merit on their
face, and Defendants only supplemented their responses as a showing of
exceptional good faith. Defendants fail,
however, to address the showing made in the moving papers that they AGREED, on
4/21/22, to supplement their responses, but then failed to do anything until
the moving papers were filed approximately three months later. If Defendants truly believed their responses
were sufficient, they should not have agreed to supplement them; once they so
agreed, it was reasonable for Plaintiffs to file a motion to compel them to comply
with their agreement after attempting to obtain the promised supplemental responses.
The Court finds the request for sanctions is not merely punitive. Drafting motions to compel further responses
is a lengthy and time-consuming process, and was made necessary once Defendants
promised to serve supplemental responses and then failed to do so. The request is compensatory in nature, not
punitive in nature.
The Court is concerned, however, about Plaintiffs’ notice of
motion. CCP §2023.040 requires the notice
of motion to identify the “person, party, and attorney against whom the sanction
is sought.” Plaintiffs, in their notice
of motion, seek sanctions solely against “Defendants” and not against Defense
Counsel. It is apparent, however, that
all choices relating to submitted further responses were made by Defense
Counsel, not by Defendants. It would
therefore be unfair to impose sanctions on Defendants, directly, when they were
not responsible for the charged discovery abuses.
Additionally, a very difficult issue is the amount of sanctions to be
imposed, if any. Plaintiffs seek
sanctions in the amounts of $16,000 (RPDs) and $14,000 (SROGs). Plaintiffs’ attorney seeks 25 hours to draft
each motion, 12 hours to reply to RPDs and seven hours to reply to SROGs, and
three hours to prepare for and attend the hearing on each motion, all at $400/hour. The Court finds the amounts excessive. An attorney who bills at the rate of
$400/hour and has Plaintiffs’ attorney’s experience should not have spent a
total of fifty hours preparing two discovery motions; this is in excess of an
entire billing week.
If the Court, after hearing, is satisfied that sanctions are appropriate
against Defendants, as opposed to against their attorneys, the Court will hear
argument on the total amount of time to be awarded. The Court is inclined to award, at most, a total
of ten hours to prepare the moving papers, two hours to prepare the reply
papers, and one hour to appear at the hearing, for a total of 13 hours at the rate
of $400/hour, or $5200.
The Court asks Counsel to make
arrangements to appear remotely at the hearing on this matter.