Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 20STCV25522, Date: 2022-08-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV25522    Hearing Date: August 16, 2022    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: August 16, 2022

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Motion for Terminating and Monetary Sanctions

Moving Party: Plaintiffs Neftaly Maldonado and Sharon Scarlett Monzon

Responding Party: Defendant Wilson Mejia

T/R:     PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SANCTIONS IS DENIED.

            PLAINTIFFS TO NOTICE.

If the parties wish to submit on the tentative, please email the courtroom at SMCdept54@lacourt.org with notice to opposing counsel (or self-represented party) before 8:30 am on the day of the hearing.

The Court considers the moving papers, opposition, and reply.

BACKGROUND

            On July 7, 2020, Plaintiffs Neftaly Maldonado and Sharon Scarlett Monzon sued Defendants Adelaida Elizabeth Ganuza, Mirna Banos, Wilson Mejia, and Mulhearn Realtors, Inc., asserting causes of action for fraud, quiet title, unjust enrichment, elder abuse, breach of fiduciary duty, constructive trust, declaratory relief, and injunctive relief. Plaintiffs alleges that Defendants fraudulently induced Plaintiffs into transferring real property to Defendants.

ANALYSIS

It is a misuse of the discovery process to fail “to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery,” (CCP § 2023.010(d)) or to disobey “a court order to provide discovery.”  (CCP § 2023.010(g).)  Under CCP § 2023.030, courts have the authority to issue monetary sanctions, evidentiary sanctions, or terminating sanctions after giving parties proper notice and the opportunity to be heard.

In determining whether sanctions should be imposed, courts consider the totality of the circumstances, including the “conduct of the party to determine if the actions were willful; the detriment to the propounding party; and the number of formal and informal attempts to obtain the discovery.”  (Lang v. Hochman (2000) 77 Cal. App. 4th 1225, 1246.)   “The penalty should be appropriate to the dereliction, and should not exceed that which is required to protect the interests of the party entitled to but denied discovery.”  (Wilson v. Jefferson (1985) 163 Cal. App. 3d 952, 959.)

            Plaintiffs moves for terminating sanctions against Defendant Wilson Mejia on the ground that he has failed to comply with the Court’s May 24, 2022 order granting Plaintiffs’ motion to compel Mejia’s deposition. Mejia asserts that when the parties met and conferred regarding a date for Mejia’s deposition, Plaintiffs refused to provide a date for Plaintiffs’ depositions.

            Discovery is not a game of “you first.” The parties are entitled to depose each other. If the parties cooperate and engage in meaningful meet and confer, there is no reason they should not be able to schedule party depositions. The Court will not award sanctions.

            Plaintiffs’ motion is DENIED.