Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 21STCV02181, Date: 2023-03-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV02181    Hearing Date: March 2, 2023    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: March 2, 2023

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Motion for Sanctions

Moving Party: Plaintiff Richard Lerner

Responding Party: Defendant LA Arena Company, LLC and Artez Range

T/R:    PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS IS DENIED.

            PLAINTIFF 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 8:00 am on the day of the hearing. 

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

BACKGROUND

            On October 28, 2021, Plaintiff Richard Lerner filed the operative first amended complaint against Defendant LA Arena Company, LLC, et al., asserting causes of action for negligence, battery, wrongful imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress and violation of Civ. Code § 51. On January 23, 2019, Plaintiff attended a concert at Staples Center. Plaintiff alleges he moved from his seat to stand against a wall because Plaintiff cannot stand long periods without support, due to his disability. Staples Center employees told him to return to his seat and later forcefully ejected him from the venue and called the police. Plaintiff was transferred to the emergency room via ambulance.

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.)

Plaintiff moves for terminating sanctions or, alternatively, issue and evidence sanctions against Defendants for misuse of the discovery process. Plaintiff asserts Defendants have failed to comply with a discovery stipulation, failed to provide sufficient responses to written discovery, and failed to produce prepared/qualified witnesses for deposition. In opposition, Defendants emphasize that they have not violated any court orders and are continuing to produce discovery in good faith. Defendants’ counsel asserts that they have been unable to contact Defendant Range.

The parties have an informal discovery conference scheduled for March 15, 2023. It is clear the parties have vastly different perceptions of the state of discovery. The Court will not award terminating, evidence or issue sanctions before the parties participate in an IDC and file any subsequent necessary discovery motions.

The parties are ordered to meet and confer by telephone, videoconference or in person for no less than two hours to address all outstanding discovery issues. Each side shall file the required 2-page statement prior to the IDC setting forth any remaining issues. The Court trusts that the issues will be narrowed or eliminated by the time of the IDC.

Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.