Judge: Michael Shultz, Case: 22STCV08190, Date: 2023-08-17 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV08190 Hearing Date: March 7, 2024 Dept: A
22STCV08190 Courtney
Gregory, Brian Gregory v. KIPP Foundation, KIPP SoCal Public Schools
[TENTATIVE] ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS OR ALTERNATIVELY ISSUE SANCTIONS; REQUEST FOR
ADDITIONAL SANCTIONS AGAINST
[TENTATIVE] ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS OR ALTERNATIVELY ISSUE SANCTIONS; REQUEST FOR
ADDITIONAL SANCTIONS AGAINST
I.
BACKGROUND
The first amended complaint (“FAC”) alleges that Plaintiff,
Courtney Gregory, was injured after a student attacked her with a chair. Plaintiff
alleges claims for fraudulent concealment, negligent hiring and supervision,
intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, negligent misrepresentation,
and related tort claims. Plaintiff’s partner, Brian Gregory, asserts a claim
for loss of consortium. The FAC alleges Plaintiff was employed by KIPP SoCal
Public Schools (“KIPP Socal”), and that Defendant, KIPP Foundation
(“Foundation”) allegedly provides training and development programs to KIPP
branded schools.
II.
ARGUMENTS
Plaintiffs
argue that that the Court granted their motion on August 17, 2023, and ordered
KIPP SoCal and the Foundation to respond to written discovery served on June 8,
2022. Plaintiffs contend that both Defendants failed to comply with the Court’s
order to respond by September 18, 2023.
Plaintiffs served all parties with their
motions. The motions remain unopposed.
III.
DISCUSSION
The court may impose
monetary, evidentiary, issue, or terminating sanctions against a party where
that party fails to obey an order compelling attendance, testimony, and
production. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450 subd. (h).)
These motions were prepared while
Plaintiffs were self-represented. Plaintiffs substituted new counsel as
attorney of record on November 15, 2023. The parties’ stipulation, signed by
Plaintiffs’ new counsel and filed on December 21, 2023, indicates that Defendants
have sinced produced additional documents including student records and other
sensitive information pursuant to a protective order signed by the parties. (Stip
& Ord. 11/15/23.) The stipulation reflects that the parties agreed that
Plaintiffs’ new counsel needs additional time to review the recently produced
documents and possibly prepare a second amended complaint that would streamline
the litigation. (Id.) Therefore, the subsequently produced documents served
by Defendants in good faith and the anticipation of Plaintiffs’ filing a second
amended complaint have materially changed the status of the case and affects
whether the sanctions sought by Plaintiffs are justified.
Additionally,
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.)
Terminating sanctions are to be used
“sparingly because of the drastic effect of their application.” (Department of Forestry & Fire Protection v. Howell (2017) 18 Cal.App.5th 154, 191.) The imposition of terminating
sanctions may be imposed “as a first measure in extreme cases, or where the
record shows lesser sanctions would be ineffective.” (Id. at
191–192.)
The Court adopts the incremental approach
and declines to impose issue, evidentiary, or terminating sanctions as doing so
would be punitive. Defendants appear to have complied in part with the
discovery at issue.
IV. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the court DENIES both
motions for imposition of terminating and other sanctions against KIPP Socal
and the Foundation as doing so would be unjust under
the circumstances.