Judge: Michael Shultz, Case: 21CMCV00214, Date: 2023-08-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21CMCV00214    Hearing Date: January 11, 2024    Dept: A

21CMCV00214 Tabitha Patton v. Ramona King

Thursday, January 11, 2024, at 8:30 a.m.

 [TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION, FILED NOVEMBER 22, 2023, FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS FOR DEFENDANT’S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT'S NOVEMBER 2, 2023, ORDER, OR ALTERNATIVELY, FOR ORDER COMPELLING FURTHER RESPONSES TO SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE

[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION, FILED DECEMBER 14, 2023, FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS FOR FAILING TO OBEY THIS COURT’S NOVEMBER 17, 2023, ORDER, OR ALTERNATIVELY, TO PROVIDE FURTHER RESPONSES TO WRITTEN DISCOVERY

[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION, FILED DECEMBER 14, 2023, FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS, OR ALTERNATIVELY, FOR ORDER COMPELLING FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND FOR SANCTIONS

I.        BACKGROUND

      The verified, first amended complaint (“FAC”) alleges that Defendant, Ramona King (“King”), forged Plaintiff’s signature on a quitclaim deed purporting to transfer Plaintiff’s 50 percent interest in real property to Defendant, leaving Defendant as the sole owner of the property. Plaintiff alleges claims for (1) forgery, (2) cancellation of instrument, (3) quiet title, (4) slander of title, (5) fraudulent concealment, (6) theft, (7) intentional infliction of emotional distress, and (8) declaratory and injunctive relief.        

II.      DISCOVERY AT ISSUE

Motion 1:

      On November 2, 2023, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendant to further respond to supplemental responses to special interrogatories, set one. The Court imposed monetary sanctions in favor of Plaintiff for both motions.

Motion 2:

      Also on November 2, 2023, the Court compelled Defendant to provide further responses and production of documents within 10 days and imposed monetary sanctions.

Motion 3:

      On November 17, 2023, the Court granted Plaintiff’s three discovery motions and ordered Plaintiff to provide further responses within 10 days to special interrogatories, set three; request for production of documents, set three; and form interrogatories, set four; all within 10 days.

      Plaintiff argues that despite efforts to meet and confer, Defendant did not fully comply with any of the foregoing orders. Defendant, who is now self-represented, did not file opposition to any of the foregoing motions.

II.   DISCUSSION

      With respect to the first motion and second motions, which arise from the November 2 order, defense counsel Mr. Backus provided second supplemental responses to the special interrogatories in response to the order. (Motion filed 11/22/23, Ex. D and Motion filed 12/14/23, Ex. D.) Mr. Backus also responded to Plaintiff’s email requesting more information, stating that Defendant would comply but requested more specifics about the precise information at issue. Defense counsel also suggested that Plaintiff take the deposition testimony of Defendant and Leo King. (Id.)

      While Defendant did not fail to comply with the Court’s November 2 order, neither Defendant, nor her former counsel responded to Plaintiff’s numerous efforts to meet and confer from November 28 through December 14, 2023, about issues that Plaintiff’s counsel found deficient. (Id., Little Decl., ¶ 6.) Nor has Defendant responded to correspondence sent to Defendant. (Id.)

      The third motion arises from a November 17 order for Defendant to provide further responses to various written discovery propounded in June of 2023.  Despite efforts to meet and confer about Defendant’s deficient responses, Plaintiff was required to bring the motions to compel further responses which the Court granted. (Little Decl., ¶ 10.) Mr. Backus paid the sanctions in full but failed to comply with the November 17 order and failed to meet and confer about the discovery on many occasions between November 28 and December 14, 2023. Plaintiff has not been able to contact Defendant at all as Defendant’s voice mailbox was not set up, nor has Defendant responded to correspondence sent by Plaintiff’s counsel. (Id. ¶ 14.)

      Discovery sanctions are not to be imposed for punishment, but instead are used to encourage fair disclosure of discovery to prevent unfairness resulting from the lack of information. (Midwife v. Bernal (1988) 203 Cal.App.3d 57, 64.) The type of sanction imposed should be “appropriate to the dereliction,” and tailored to accomplish the discovery sought. (Do It Urself Moving & Storage, Inc. v. Brown, Leifer, Slatkin & Berns (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 27, 35.) There are two prerequisites for the imposition of a discovery sanction: “(1) there must be a failure to comply [with a valid discovery order] . . . and (2) the failure must be willful.” (Young v. Rosenthal (1989) 212 Cal. App. 3d 96, 114.)

      Abuses of the discovery process include employing a discovery method that causes unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression, or undue burden and expense; making unmeritorious objections or evasive responses to discovery; and failing to meet and confer in good faith. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010.)

      Plaintiff’s counsel has incurred considerable time in pursuit of discoverable information and sending packages by Federal Express to no avail. Defendant has not contacted Plaintiff’s counsel and has not shown an interest in defending this litigation. The absence of any cooperation by Defendant in fulfilling her discovery obligations indicates a willful refusal to provide information sought by Plaintiff.

      Accordingly, terminating sanctions are warranted under the circumstances. The court strikes Defendant’s second amended answer filed on October 30, 2023, and enters Defendant’s default. While the Court granted Defendant leave to file a cross-complaint by December 29, 2023, the Court’s file does not reflect that Defendant complied with the Court’s order, supporting the conclusion that Defendant no longer seeks affirmative relief in this action.

      Additionally, the Court imposes monetary sanctions of $2,700 in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant, Romona King aka Ramona King, for expenses incurred to prepare all three motions and costs of $184.95 ($61.65 x 3) incurred in filing fees, payable within 10 days. The Court finds that $450 per hour and two hours to prepare each of three motions are reasonable.