Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 20STCV37137, Date: 2023-04-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV37137    Hearing Date: April 4, 2023    Dept: 32

PLEASE NOTE:   Parties are encouraged to meet and confer concerning this tentative ruling to determine if a resolution may be reached.  If the parties are unable to reach a resolution and a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the Court at sscdept32@lacourt.org indicating that party’s intention to submit.  The email shall include the case number, date and time of the hearing, counsel’s contact information (if applicable), and the identity of the party submitting on this tentative ruling.  If the Court does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may place the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  If all parties do not submit on this tentative ruling, they should arrange to appear in-person or remotely (which is highly encouraged).  Further, after the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion and adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. 

TENTATIVE RULING

MOTION

            Defendant County of Los Angeles (Defendant) moves to dismiss, with prejudice, the complaint by Plaintiff Vanessa Hill Richie (Plaintiff) as a terminating sanction.  In the alternative, Defendant seeks an order prohibiting Plaintiff from claiming and/or introducing evidence that a dangerous condition existed, the County and its employees had notice of a dangerous condition, the County and its employees were negligent, or Plaintiff sustained any injury or damages.  Defendant also requests monetary sanctions.

            At the hearing on March 7, 2023, the Court continued the hearing to permit Plaintiff an opportunity to oppose the motion.  Thereafter, Plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion to which Defendant filed a reply.

ANALYSIS

When a party misuses the discovery process by disobeying a court order to provide discovery, the court in its discretion may impose a terminating sanction by striking a party’s pleading or dismissing the action of the party.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2023.010, subd. (g), 2023.030, subds. (d)(1) & (d)(3); 2030.290, subd. (c), 2031.300, subd. (c).) 

California discovery law authorizes a range of penalties for a party's refusal to obey a discovery order, including monetary sanctions, evidentiary sanctions, issue sanctions, and terminating sanctions.  A court has broad discretion in selecting the appropriate penalty, . . . . Despite this broad discretion, the courts have long recognized that the terminating sanction is a drastic penalty and should be used sparingly.  A trial court must be cautious when imposing a terminating sanction because the sanction eliminates a party's fundamental right to a trial, thus implicating due process rights.  The trial court should select a sanction that is tailored to the harm caused by the withheld discovery.  Sanctions 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.

(Lopez v. Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York, Inc. (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 566, 604 [cleaned up].)  Equally important, “a terminating sanction issued solely because of a failure to pay a monetary discovery sanction is never justified.”  (Newland v. Superior Court (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 608, 615.)

Here, on December 12, 2022, the Court ordered Plaintiff to appear for deposition within 30 days of the notice of the Court’s order, as well as ordered Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel of record, Shane Phayakapong and Narek Vardanyan, jointly and severally, to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $645 to Defendant, by and through counsel for Defendant, within 30 days of notice of the Court’s order. (See December 12, 2022 Minute Order.) 

Defendant gave Plaintiff notice of the Court’s order on December 12, 2022, electronically.  Plaintiff thus had until January 13, 2023 to appear for deposition.  Defendant concurrently served a notice of deposition of Plaintiff on December 12, 2022, with the deposition scheduled to take place on December 29, 2022.  Plaintiff did not object to the notice of deposition and did not attend the deposition on December 29, 2022.

As of the filing date of the motion (February 7, 2023), Plaintiff has not appeared for deposition or paid the monetary sanctions.  Plaintiff has thus disobeyed this Court’s order of December 12, 2022. 

            In opposition, Plaintiff contends that Plaintiff’s counsel has paid the outstanding monetary sanctions ordered by the Court on December 12, 2022.  (Plaintiff’s Opposition, Exhibit 4.)  Plaintiff further attests that the parties have agreed to take Plaintiff’s deposition on March 31, 2023.  (See Plaintiff’s Opposition, Exhibit 3.)  

In light of Plaintiff’s failure to appear for deposition within 30 days of notice of the Court’s ruling, the Court finds Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Court’s orders of December 12, 2022.  Notwithstanding, the Court finds that a terminating sanction in this instance would be in excess of what is required to protect the party entitled to but denied discovery.

The purpose of the discovery statutes is to enable a party to obtain evidence under the control of his adversary in order to further the efficient and economical disposition of a lawsuit. Where no answers are filed, a trial judge is empowered to select one of the sanctions authorized by . . . the Code of Civil Procedure.  Where a motion to compel has been granted, and discovery has been delayed or denied, the court must make orders in regard to the refusal As are just.  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.  Where a motion to compel has previously been granted, the sanction should not operate in such a fashion as to put the prevailing party in a better position than he would have had if he had obtained the discovery sought and it had been completely favorable to his cause. The sanction of dismissal or the rendition of a default judgment against the disobedient party is ordinarily a drastic measure which should be employed with caution.

(Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 793 [cleaned up].)  The Court therefore denies Defendant’s request for terminating, evidence, and/or issue sanctions.

            Instead, the Court finds Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s orders of December 12, 2022, to be an abuse of the discovery process, warranting monetary sanctions only.  (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2023.010, subd. (g) and 2023.030, subd. (a).) Thus, the Court will impose monetary sanctions against Plaintiff the amount of $690, which represents three hours of attorney time to prepare the moving and reply papers, and attend the hearing, at $230 per hour.[1] 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Therefore, the Court denies Defendant’s motion for terminating sanctions, or in the alternative evidence and/or issue sanctions.

Further, the Court grants Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions and orders Plaintiff to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $690 to Defendant, by and through counsel for Defendant, within 30 days of the Court’s orders.

Defendant shall provide notice of this Court’s ruling and file a proof of service of such.