Judge: Mark E. Windham, Case: 22STLC01233, Date: 2023-08-08 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STLC01233 Hearing Date: December 4, 2023 Dept: 26
Aparicio, et al. v. Hambel, et al.
MOTION FOR TERMINATING, EVIDENTIARY, ISSUE, AND MONETARY SANCTIONS
(CCP § 2023.010, et seq.)
TENTATIVE RULING:
Plaintiffs Pedro Aparicio and Martha Prado’s Motion for Terminating, Evidentiary, Issue, and Monetary Sanctions is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. THE REQUEST FOR EVIDENTIARY, ISSUE, OR TERMINATING SANCTIONS IS DENIED. PLAINTIFFS ARE AWARDED MONETARY SANCTIONS OF $2,327.00 JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY AGAINST DEFENDANT LIAM HAMBEL AND COUNSEL OF RECORD, TO BE PAID WITHIN 20 DAYS.
ANALYSIS:
Plaintiffs Pedro Aparicio and Martha Prado (“Plaintiffs”) filed the instant action for motor vehicle negligence against Defendants Liam Hambel and Sabrina Rodin (“Defendants”) on May 23, 2022. Defendants filed an answer on October 7, 2022. On May 4, 2023, Plaintiff Aparicio filed a Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents against Defendant Hambel, which the Court granted on June 6, 2023. (Minute Order, 06/06/23.) Another Motion to Compel Defendant Hambel’s Production of Documents was granted in Plaintiff Aparicio’s favor on August 8, 2023. (Minute Order, 08/08/23.) Finally, on November 22, 2023, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories. (Minute Order, 11/22/23.)
Plaintiffs filed the instant Motion for Terminating, Issue, Evidentiary, and Monetary Sanctions against Defendant on September 20, 2023. Defendant filed an opposition on November 17, 2023 and Plaintiffs replied on November 27, 2023.
Where a party willfully disobeys a discovery order, courts have the discretion to impose terminating, issue, evidence or monetary sanctions. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2023.010, subds. (d), (g); R.S. Creative, Inc. v. Creative Cotton, Ltd. (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 486, 495.) Contrary to the opposition argument, Plaintiffs’ motion is supported by authority under Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030, which states in relevant part: “The court may impose 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.”
(Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030, subd. (d).) The court should look to the totality of the circumstances in determining whether terminating sanctions are appropriate. (Lang v. Hochman (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 1225, 1246.) 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.) “[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.)
Discussion
As noted above, the Court granted two of Plaintiff Aparicio’s motions to compel production of documents. At the time the instant Motion for sanctions was filed on September 20, 2023, Defendant had not complied with either order. (Motion, Hakim Decl., ¶¶3-5 and Exhs. 4-6.) In opposition, Defendant admits that compliance with the second order was not effectuated until November 17, 2023, the same day the opposition was filed. (Opp., Oakes Decl., ¶4.) Defendant contends that compliance with the first production order was made within the 20-day deadline. (Id. at ¶3.) In light of this production, Defendant argues that no evidentiary, issue, or terminating sanctions are warranted and that the monetary sanctions be greatly reduced. Plaintiffs seek an issue sanction that the subject accident was caused by Defendant, an evidentiary sanction prohibiting Defendant from introducing facts of the subject accident, or a terminating sanction striking Defendant’s answer and entering default judgment. (Notice of Motion, pp. 1-2.) The Court finds that these sanctions are too broadly sought with respect to the specific late-produced documents and, in light of their admittedly late production, would amount to punishment instead of inducing compliance with its order.
The Court does find that monetary sanctions are warranted for Defendant’s non-compliance with the orders to serve responses and the necessity of filing the instant Motion to compel compliance. The amount sought, however, is excessive and under a lodestar calculation, and reduced to $2,327.00 based on nine hours of attorney time billed at $250.00 and $77.00 in costs.
Conclusion
Plaintiffs Pedro Aparicio and Martha Prado’s Motion for Terminating, Evidentiary, Issue, and Monetary Sanctions is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. THE REQUEST FOR EVIDENTIARY, ISSUE, OR TERMINATING SANCTIONS IS DENIED. PLAINTIFFS ARE AWARDED MONETARY SANCTIONS OF $2,327.00 JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY AGAINST DEFENDANT LIAM HAMBEL AND COUNSEL OF RECORD, TO BE PAID WITHIN 20 DAYS.
Moving party to give notice.