Judge: Mark H. Epstein, Case: 22SMCV00398, Date: 2024-11-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22SMCV00398    Hearing Date: November 25, 2024    Dept: I

This is a motion for a protective order brought by the defense.  Plaintiff’s further opposition, filed 11/20/24 is STRICKEN because it is not authorized and it is overlong.

The motion is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.

Defendants seek an order of the court directing plaintiff to communicate only using a civil tenor and tone.  Defendants contend, and have submitted documentary support showing, that plaintiff has used profanity and the like in her communications with them.  And it appears to the court that plaintiff has indeed done just that.  The court has seen no communications from the defense using a similar tenor or tone.

The court well understands that plaintiff is self-represented.  The court also understands that plaintiff claims that her apartment is not habitable for various reasons and claims that defendants are engaging in discovery abuse that she asserts has injured her health dramatically to the point where she has had to seek emergency medical attention.  The court also understands plaintiff’s frustration to the extent that she has properly sought insurance information that has not been provided.

The fact remains, though, that although plaintiff is self-represented, she still must follow the Code of Civil Procedure, the California Rules of Court, and the Los Angeles Superior Court Local Rules.  Those rules demand that the parties communicate professionally, and this court intends to insist on that.  (It also specifies the way in which papers must be filed, including format and length.)  Plaintiff has not followed those rules.  Her submissions to the court have not followed format, although the court has overlooked that for now other than the most recent unauthorized submission.  But more importantly, she has included name-calling and inappropriate language furthering personal attacks on counsel.  That is not permitted and it will not lead to a resolution of this case, either through settlement or trial.  It must stop, and it must stop now.

The request for a protective order is therefore GRANTED as follows.  From this point forward, all communications between the defense and plaintiff will be in writing and all communications will be civil in tenor and tone.  The only exception to the written communication rule will be court hearings and depositions, but even oral communications must be civil.

The request for monetary sanctions is DENIED.  While the court agrees that plaintiff’s language has been inappropriate, the court does not believe that sanctions at this point will accomplish anything.  But plaintiff should be aware that if this order is violated, sanctions will be imposed.  The sanctions may start as monetary sanctions, but could well get to the point of terminating sanctions if the offending behavior continues.  That said, the court is confident that plaintiff will adhere to this order in letter and spirit going forward.  One suggestion would be for plaintiff not to address any email communications until the communication is fully written and is ready to go.  Even then, plaintiff might want to let it stand for some number of hours and then read it again to ensure that it meets this court’s requirements.  Sometimes hitting “send” on the spur of the moment means that the communications are not as carefully thought out as they ought to be.

Plaintiff has a series of issues with the defense that appear to be on calendar for 12/9/24.  The court will deal with those then.

Defendants also complain that plaintiff has reported defense counsel to the Bar.  The court will not punish that behavior.  Reporting conduct to the Bar is privileged and the court is more than a little bit slow to impose a sanction for that conduct.  No one should assume that the court’s decision in that regard is the reflection of any view that such a complaint has merit or was proper; it is only to say that reports of that type are privileged under the law and that punishing a party for making a complaint in this way would not, in the court’s view, be proper.

The court also reminds the parties that the final status conference is set for December 23, 2024, and the trial is set for December 30, 2024.  Those dates are fast approaching.  The court has already instructed the parties to comply with the court’s FSC and trial orders.  That still holds.  Because the parties will not be meeting in person or telephonically, they will need to work extra hard to ensure that the materials are timely completed and sent.  The court also reminds the parties that this is a mutual obligation; it is not merely plaintiff’s duty or defendants’ duty.

The court hopes that no more will need to be said on this subject.  But if more is needed, the court notes that it has plenty of tools in its toolbox to deal with the situation.

A short word on the papers filed on 11/20/24.  Plaintiff’s request that the court order that there be no communications at all unless defendants give plaintiff a settlement check is frivolous and in obvious bad faith.  Plaintiff needs to understand that before she will recover, either defendants must agree to settle or she must persuade a jury of her case, meaning that she has complied fully with the court’s FSC and trial orders and tried the matter to the point where the jury is willing to render a verdict in her favor.  Of course, defendants must also comply with the court’s FSC and trial orders.