Judge Michael P. Linfield, Case 22STCV01480 2023-02-15 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Michael P. Linfield, Case: 22STCV01480, Date: 2023-02-15 Tentative Ruling

SUBJECT: Motion for Issue, Evidentiary, Monetary, and/or Terminating Sanctions for Defendant’s Failure to Comply with the Court’s October 25, 2022 Order re Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories

Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions is GRANTED in part. The Motion is GRANTED regarding SROGs. The Motion is DENIED regarding RPDs.

Defendant shall have seven (7) days from the issuance of this Order to provide further supplemental answers to SROGs 14 and 20. Monetary sanctions are AWARDED in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant and its Counsel, jointly and severally, in the amount of $1,000.00.

On January 13, 2022, Plaintiff Virgil Haines filed his Complaint against Defendant General Motors LLC on causes of action of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act.

On October 25, 2022, the Court: (1) granted Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant’s Further Responses to Special Interrogatories (Set One); and (2) denied Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant’s Compliance with Providing Supplemental Responses and Documents to Plaintiff’s Request for Production (Set One).

On January 3, 2023, Plaintiff filed his Motion for Issue, Evidentiary, Monetary, and/or Terminating Sanctions for Defendant’s Failure to Comply with the Court’s October 25, 2022 Order re Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories (Set One) and Defendant’s Promise to Produce Documents (Set One) (“Motion for Sanctions”). Plaintiff concurrently filed: (1) Declaration or Pouyan Bohloul; (2) Separate Statement; and (3) Proof of Service.

On January 12, 2023, Plaintiff re-filed an updated version of the Motion for Sanctions for a later date. Plaintiff concurrently filed: (1) Memorandum of Points and Authorities; (2) Declaration of Pouyan Bohloul; (3) Separate Statement; (4) Exhibit Index; and (5) Proof of Service.

On January 17, 2023, Defendant filed its Opposition. Defendant concurrently filed: (1) Declaration of Arash Yaraghchian; (2) Separate Statement in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Compliance with Court Order; (3) Separate Statement in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Compliance with the Joint Statement of Discovery in Dispute; and (4) Proof of Service.

On January 23, 2023, Plaintiff filed two Replies: one regarding the Order dated October 25, 2022, and another regarding Defendant’s alleged promise regarding request for production.

Plaintiff filed Evidentiary Objections to Declaration of Arash Yaraghchian. The following are the Court’s rulings as to both sets of Evidentiary Objections:

Objection
1		OVERRULED
2		OVERRULED
3		OVERRULED
4	SUSTAINED
5	SUSTAINED
6	SUSTAINED
7	SUSTAINED
8	SUSTAINED
9	SUSTAINED
10		OVERRULED

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. (Code Civ. Proc., § 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, 795–96.)

A terminating sanction is a "drastic measure which should be employed with caution." (Id. at p. 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, supra, 84 Cal.App.3d at p. 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." (Id.) 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."].)

As Plaintiff has apparently filed this motion twice, the Court considers the January 12, 2023 filing and disregards the January 3, 2023 filing.

Plaintiff claims that Defendant has failed to comply with the Court’s Order dated October 25, 2022. (Motion for Sanctions, pp. 2–6.) Plaintiff moves the Court to sanction Defendant with terminating sanctions, issue sanctions, evidentiary sanctions, and/or monetary sanctions. (Id. at pp. 7:17–18, 10:10–11, 12:17, 15:18–19, 17:15–17.)

Defendant argues that the Motion for Sanctions is moot because Defendant has served supplemental responses to the Special Interrogatories (SROGs) and Requests for Production of Documents (RPDs). (Opposition, p. 3:11–27.)

The Court denied on procedural grounds Plaintiff’s earlier motion to compel further responses to the RPDs. Without reaching the merits of that motion, the Court merely suggested that Defendant re-submit the supplemental production so that Plaintiff receives it. As there has not been an order compelling further responses to the RPDs, the Court declines to issue sanctions regarding the sufficiency of the RPDs. Furthermore, the Court does not have sufficient evidence before it that would lead the Court to find that Defendant is acting in bad faith or failing to provide further responses. Plaintiff admits that Defendant has since produced documents on October 25, 2022, December 6, 2022, and December 21, 2022. (Minute Order dated October 25, 2022; Motion for Sanctions, p. 5:1–26.)

In contrast with the RPDs, the Court compelled Defendant to provide further supplemental answers to Plaintiff’s SROGs 14 and 20. (Minute Order dated October 25, 2022, p. 6.) The SROGs at issue are:

· SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 14: IDENTIFY all PERSONS who performed warranty repairs upon the SUBJECT VEHICLE

· SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 20: IDENTIFY all PERSONS who inspected the SUBJECT VEHICLE during the RELEVANT PERIOD.

In its prior Order, the Court considered Defendant’s first supplemental response to these SROGs, which stated:

“Subject to and based upon documents in GM’s possession, custody and control, GM identifies the following: Service Advisor Hugo Carranza (#960), and Technicians #511, #578, and #999 (names unknown) at Three-Way Chevrolet-Cadillac, 4501 Wible Road, Bakersfield, California, 93313- 2639, (661) 283-3300.”

(Defendant’s Separate Statement to Motion to Compel Further Responses, pp. 1:17–21, 5:1–6.)

The Court then discussed how “Defendant has not stated that it does not have personal knowledge sufficient to respond fully to the interrogatories, nor is there any indication that Defendant has made a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information (i.e., the names of the individuals who worked on Plaintiff’s vehicle) by inquiring with the dealership.” (Minute Order dated October 25, 2022, p. 6.)

“GM reasserts the objections in its original response to this Interrogatory. Subject to and without waiving its objections, and based upon documents in GM’s possession, custody and control, GM identifies the following: Service Advisor Mike Tafoya at Giant Chevrolet of Visalia, 1001 S. Ben Maddox Way, Visalia, CA 93292, (559) 733-1100; and Service Advisor Hugo Carranza Chacon at Three-Way Chevrolet Cadillac, 4501 Wible Road, Bakersfield, CA 93313, (661) 283-3300.”

(Defendant’s Separate Statement to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Compliance with Court Order, p. 1:14–18.)

While Defendant’s response does identify a previously unidentified individual (Mike Tafoya at Giant Chevrolet of Visalia), the response entirely omits any information about Technicians #511, #578, and #999 (names unknown) at Three-Way Chevrolet-Cadillac. Again, Defendant fails to state that it lacks personal knowledge sufficient to provide this information, nor is there any indication that Defendant has made a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information by inquiring with the dealership. This is the basis for Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions as it regards the SROGs. (Reply regarding the Court’s October 25, 2022 Order re Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories (Set One), p. 2:19–26.)

The Court did not consider the issue of sanctions on October 25, 2022 because neither party requested them. Given that Defendant’s failure to provide sufficient responses, monetary discovery sanctions are warranted. (Biles, supra, at 1315.)

The Court notes that Plaintiff’s requests for monetary sanctions are not consistent. In his Motion for Sanctions and his Counsel’s Declaration, Plaintiff’s request is for $1,000.00 in monetary sanctions. (Motion for Sanctions, p. 7:13–16; Decl. Bohloul, ¶ 31.) Yet in Plaintiff’s Reply, Plaintiff requests that the Court award $4,374.15 in monetary sanctions for Plaintiff and against Defendant and its Counsel, jointly and severally, as well as an additional $1,500.00 payable to the Court. (Reply regarding the Court’s October 25, 2022 Order re Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories (Set One), p. 6:19–25.) Plaintiff’s Counsel declares that he spent 11.50 hours on this motion at a rate of $375.00 per hour, plus a motion filing fee of $61.65. (Decl. Bohloul, ¶ 31.)

The Court finds that $1,000.00 is an appropriate figure for monetary sanctions in this instance.

The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions regarding the SROGs. Defendant shall have seven (7) days from the issuance of this Order to provide further supplemental answers to SROGs 14 and 20. The Court awards monetary sanctions in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant and its Counsel, jointly and severally, in the amount of $1,000.00.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions is GRANTED in part. The Motion is GRANTED regarding SROGs. The Motion is DENIED regarding RPDs.