Judge Michael P. Linfield, Case 20STCV42053 2022-07-28 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Michael P. Linfield, Case: 20STCV42053, Date: 2022-07-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV42053 Hearing Date: July 28, 2022 Dept: 34

SUBJECT: Defendant Michael Williams’ Motion for Terminating Sanctions and Monetary Sanctions of $5,605.00 Against Plaintiff or, in the Alternative, Evidentiary Sanctions and Monetary Sanctions of $5,605.00 Against Plaintiff

Moving Party: Defendant Michael Williams (“Williams”)

Resp. Party: None

Defendant Michael Williams’ Motion for Terminating Sanctions and Monetary Sanctions of $5,605.00 Against Plaintiff or, in the Alternative, Evidentiary Sanctions and Monetary Sanctions of $5,605.00 Against Plaintiff is DENIED.

Plaintiff Lannette Johnson is ordered to submit to Defendant Michael Williams’ deposition within 14 days of this hearing.

Plaintiff Lannette Johnson is ordered to pay monetary sanctions to Defendant Michael Williams in the amount of $2,065.00.

I. BACKGROUND

On November 3, 2020, Plaintiff Lannette Johnson filed a complaint against Defendants Michael Williams and Does 1-10 to allege a single cause of action for negligence.

On December 31, 2020, Johnson filed a First Amended Complaint against Defendants Michael Williams and Does 1 through 20, inclusive, to allege a single cause of action for negligence.

On May 3, 2021, Johnson filed a Second Amended Complaint against Defendants Michael Williams and Does 1 through 20, inclusive, to allege the following causes of action:

1. Negligence – Vicarious Liability, Legal Relationship Not Disputed

2. Nuisance

3. Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress

On August 10, 2021, Johnson filed a Third Amended Complaint against Defendants Michael Williams and Does 1 through 20, inclusive, to allege the following causes of action:

1. Negligence

2. Nuisance

On May 25, 2022, the Court granted Williams’ Motion to Compel Deposition of Plaintiff Lannette Johnson and Williams’ Motion to Compel Responses to Williams’ Special Interrogatories, Set One.

On May 26, 2022, the Court granted Plaintiff Lannette Johnson’s counsel’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel.

On July 1, 2022, Defendant Michael Williams moved the Court for an order “granting terminating sanctions and monetary sanctions in the amount of $5,605.00 against Plaintiff Lannette Johnson, made payable to Defendant’s counsel, for her willful failure to comply with this Court’s discovery order from May 25, 2022.” (Motion, p. 25-27.)

On July 21, 2022, Williams replied to his motion. No opposition has been filed with the Court.

II. ANALYSIS

A. Legal Standard

Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030 gives the court the discretion to impose sanctions against anyone engaging in a misuse of the discovery process. A court may impose terminating sanctions by striking pleadings of the party engaged in misuse of discovery or entering default judgment. (CCP § 2023.030(d).) A violation of a discovery order is sufficient for the imposition of terminating sanctions. (Collison & Kaplan v. Hartunian (1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 1611, 1620.) Terminating sanctions are appropriate when a party persists in disobeying the court's orders. (Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 795-796.)

A terminating sanction is a "drastic measure which should be employed with caution." (Deyo, 84 Cal.App.3d at 793.) "A decision to order terminating sanctions should not be made lightly. But where a violation is willful, preceded by a history of abuse, and the evidence shows that less severe sanctions would not produce compliance with the discovery rules, the trial court is justified in imposing the ultimate sanction." (Mileikowsky v. Tenet Healthsystem (2005) 128 Ca1.App.4th 262, 279-280.) While the court has discretion to impose terminating sanctions, these 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." (Deyo, 84 Cal.App.3d at 793.) "[A court is empowered to apply the ultimate sanction against a litigant who persists in the outright refusal to comply with his discovery obligations." (Ibid.) Discovery sanctions are not to be imposed for punishment, but instead are used to encourage fair disclosure of discovery to prevent unfairness resulting for the lack of information. (See Midwife v. Bernal (1988) 203 Cal.App.3d 57, 64 [superseded on other grounds as stated in Kohan v. Cohan (1991) 229 Cal.App.3d 967, 9711.)

"A trial court has broad discretion to impose discovery sanctions, but two facts are generally prerequisite to the imposition of nonmonetary sanctions .... (1) absent unusual circumstances, there must be a failure to comply with a court order, and (2) the failure must be willful." (Biles v. Exxon Mobil Corp. (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1315, 1327. But see Reedy v. Bussell (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 1272, 1291 ["willfulness is no longer a requirement for the imposition of discovery sanctions."].)

B. Discussion

On May 25, 2022, this Court granted Defendant Michael Williams’ Motion to Compel Deposition of Plaintiff Lannette Johnson and ordered Johnson deposition to be taken before the end of June 2022. (Minute Order, May 25, 2022, p. 12.) Plaintiff Johnson has now failed to appear for noticed depositions twice, on March 28, 2022 and June 27, 2022. (Allison Decl., ¶¶ 2, 14-21.) Johnson indicated in an email to Williams’ counsel that she would not sit for deposition without an attorney, stating “At this time, I do not plan to attend any deposition without counsel unless I am advised to do so.” (Allison Decl., ¶¶ 10, 11, Ex. B.)

Williams notes that he is “greatly prejudiced in his defense” by Johnson’s ongoing indifference to attend her deposition and respect basic discovery norms. (Motion, MPA, p. 9:7.) The Court finds that Johnson violated the Court order of May 25, 2022. Further, the Court considers Johnson’s email of June 9, 2022 evidence of a willful disregard for existing orders from this Court. The mere fact that Ms. Johnson is now in pro per does not allow her to choose which orders from this Court she wishes to obey. Litigants in propria persona may regard interrogatories, requests for admissions, law and motion proceedings and the like as baffling devices, but the present case shows Johnson’s indifference toward Court directives, not her confusion. (Bruno v. Superior Court (1990) 219 Cal.App.3d 1359, 1363; Allison Decl., ¶¶ 10, 11, Ex. B.) Though Ms. Johnson writes in her email of June 9, 2022 of her interest in staying the present case, the Court finds no evidence that she filed such a motion with the Court. (Id.)

Still, terminating sanctions prove a drastic measure, one not imposed on litigants with few resources who lack legal counsel without a longer record of malfeasance. The Court orders Plaintiff Lannette Johnson to submit for Williams’ deposition within two weeks of this ruling.

Further, the Court orders Plaintiff Lannette Johnson to pay $2,065.00 in monetary sanctions to Defendant Michael Williams. The Court calculates the above figure as follows: five hours at an hourly rate of $200.00, plus court reporter fees of $625.00, a filing fee of $60.00, and a videographer fee of $380.00. (Allison Decl., ¶¶ 25-28.)

III. CONCLUSION

Plaintiff Lannette Johnson is ordered to submit to Defendant Michael Williams’ deposition within 14 days of this hearing, unless otherwise agreed by both parties in writing.

Plaintiff Lannette Johnson is ordered to pay monetary sanctions to Defendant Michael Williams in the amount of $2,065.00.