Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 20STCV33393, Date: 2022-08-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV33393    Hearing Date: August 3, 2022    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: August 3, 2022

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Motion to Compel Responses to Discovery and for Sanctions

Moving Party: Defendant Laura Lopez

Responding Party: None

T/R:  DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS AGAINST PLAINTIFF IN THE AMOUNT OF $2500 IS GRANTED. SANCTIONS ARE PAYABLE WITIN 30 DAYS. DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR OTHER SANCTIONS IS DENIED AT THIS TIME.

PLAINTIFF TO SERVE VERIFIED RESPONSES TO THE SUBJECT DISCOVERY, WITHOUT OBJECTIONS, WITHIN 10 DAYS OF NOTICE OF RULING.

DEFENDANT 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.

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.)

Defendant Lopez moves to compel responses to the first set of SIs, FIs and RPDs from Plaintiff Jin, and/or to award monetary, issue, evidence or terminating sanctions against Plaintiff. On May 19, 2022, Defendant’s initial motion to compel came for hearing before the Court. Plaintiff represented that some responses were served in April 2022. After argument, the Court granted the motion because Plaintiff had failed to provide responses to all the requested discovery.

Defendant asserts that Plaintiff has failed to provide responses to discovery in violation of the Court’s May 19, 2022 order. In opposition, Plaintiff again states that responses were served in April 2022.

As evidence, issue and terminating sanctions are extreme remedies, the Court will allow Plaintiff one more chance to provide substantive responses to all discovery. If Plaintiff again fails to comply the Court’s order, the Court may revisit these sanctions on further motion. The Court will grant Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions in the amount of $2500 for bringing this motion.