Judge: Michael Small, Case: 21STCV16804, Date: 2024-05-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV16804    Hearing Date: May 6, 2024    Dept: 57

RUILNG ON ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE REGARDING REVISION TO EVIDENTIARY SANCTIONS RULING AGAINST DEFENDANT COURTNEY SEASHOLS

On October 26, 2023, the Court heard Plaintiff Janice Clark’s unopposed motion for terminating sanctions against Defendant Courtney Seashols, or, in the alternative, for an order imposing evidentiary sanctions against Seashols.   The asserted basis for Clark’s motion for terminating or, alternatively evidentiary, sanctions, was Seashols’ s failure to comply with orders of this Court, per Judge Steven Kleifield, in granting discovery motions filed by Clark to provide further responses to certain forms of discovery that Clark had propounded on Seashols.   At the hearing, the Court declined to enter terminating sanctions, but it granted Clark’s motion to the extent that it sought evidentiary sanctions. 

On December 8, 2023, the Court entered an order regarding evidentiary sanctions based on the Court’s disposition of the motion for terminating sanctions. The order the Court entered was the proposed order that Clark’s counsel submitted.  Seashols, who was self-represented at the time, opposed that proposed order.  Subsequently, Seashols retained counsel, who, on her behalf, filed a motion under Code of Civil Procedure Section 473 to vacate the evidentiary sanction order.  The Court denied Seashols’ s motion.  On its own motion, however, the Court set an order to show cause on whether the evidentiary sanctions order should be revised.  The Court took that step because the Court was  concerned that the evidentiary sanctions order swept too broadly in that it was not tethered to Seashols’s failure to comply with Judge Kleifield’s orders directing Seashols to provide further discovery responses.  Specifically, it appeared to the Court that the evidentiary sanctions order went beyond what Judge Kleifield had ordered by barring Seashols from introducing evidence at trial that was not the subject of the discovery motions that led to Judge Kleifield’s orders.  

In response to the Court’s order to show cause, Seashols’s counsel prepared a proposed revised discovery sanction order.  According to Seashols’s counsel, his proposed revision narrowed the scope of the evidentiary sanctions order by tying the prohibition on evidence that Seashols could introduce at trial to the specific discovery requests to which Judge Kleifield had ordered Seashols to provide further discovery responses and thus to the orders with which Seashols failed to comply.

Clark’s counsel submitted a counter proposed revision to the evidentiary sanctions order, which, in redline, showed the changes that Clark’s counsel is suggesting should be made to the proposed revised order submitted by Seashols’s counsel.

The Court has reviewed the competing proposed revised evidentiary sanctions orders.  In the Court’s view, the proposed revised evidentiary sanctions order submitted by Seashols’s counsel captures the specific violations of Judge Kleifield’s orders on Clark’s discovery motions with which Seashols failed to comply.

Through a minute order issued on January 3, 2023, Judge Kleifield  that day ordered Seashols, per a motion that Clark filed on November 8, 2022,  to provide further responses to Request for Admissions Numbers 4, 14, and 15.  Seashols failed to comply with that order.  Through a minute order issued on January 4, 2023, Judge Kleifield that day ordered Seashols, per a motion that Clark filed on November 7, 2022, to provide further responses to Form Interrogatories Numbers 2.3 and 2.6.  Seashols failed to comply with that order as well. 

Clark’s motion for terminating sanctions stated that Seashols also failed to comply with an order Judge Kleifield issued via a minute order on December 15, 2022 to provide further responses to Clark’s request for production of documents.   The supposed issuance of such an order appears to be at the heart of the divergence between the proposed revised evidentiary sanctions order that was submitted by Clark’s counsel and the one submitted by Seashols’s counsel.

The problem is that this bench officer has not located on the case docket a December 15, 2022 minute order regarding a motion by Clark to compel further responses to production of documents.  Nor has the Court located a motion filed by Clark seeking to compel further responses to requests for  production of documents, along with a supporting separate statement.  The lone minute order in the case for December 15, 2022 appears to refer to the motion to compel further responses to form interrogatories filed on November 8, 2022, which, as indicated above, was the subject of a January 4, 2023 minute order. 

To be sure, Clark’s counsel filed a Notice of Ruling on December 20, 2022 that states that, at a hearing on December 15, 2022, the Court granted Clark’s motion to compel further responses to requests for production of documents.  But again, there is such motion on the docket and, likewise, no corresponding separate statement.  The Court cannot give weight to a Notice of Ruling about a motion and separate statement that never were filed in the first place.

Clark’s counsel points out that Seashols filed an opposition to a motion to compel further responses to requests for production of documents and that Seashols has made no argument that the Court did not hear and decide that motion.  All of that is true.  But the Court’s goal of determining the proper scope of the evidentiary sanctions order for non-compliance with the Court’s rulings on Clark’s discovery motions necessarily depends on what those motions sought.   A discovery motion that was never filed cannot be part of the predicate for an evidentiary sanctions order for noncompliance with rulings on discovery motions.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

            On October 26, 2023, the Court heard Plaintiff Janice Clark’s unopposed motion for terminating sanctions against Defendant Courtney Seashols, or, in the alternative, for an order imposing evidentiary sanctions against Seashols.   The asserted basis for Clark’s motion for terminating or, alternatively evidentiary, sanctions, was Seashols’ s failure to comply with orders of this Court, per Judge Steven Kleifield, in granting discovery motions filed by Clark to provide further responses to certain forms of discovery that Clark had propounded on Seashols.   At the hearing, the Court declined to enter terminating sanctions, but it granted Clark’s motion to the extent that it sought evidentiary sanctions. 

On December 8, 2023, the Court entered an order regarding evidentiary sanctions based on the Court’s disposition of the motion for terminating sanctions. The order the Court entered was the proposed order that Clark’s counsel submitted.  Seashols, who was self-represented at the time, opposed that proposed order.  Subsequently, Seashols retained counsel, who, on her behalf, filed a motion under Code of Civil Procedure Section 473 to vacate the evidentiary sanction order.  The Court denied Seashols’ s motion.  On its own motion, however, the Court set an order to show cause (“OSC”) on whether the evidentiary sanctions order should be revised.  The Court took that step because the Court was concerned that the evidentiary sanctions order swept too broadly in that it was not tethered to Seashols’s failure to comply with Judge Kleifield’s orders directing Seashols to provide further discovery responses.  Specifically, it appeared to the Court that the evidentiary sanctions order went beyond what Judge Kleifield had ordered by barring Seashols from introducing evidence at trial that was not the subject of the discovery motions that led to Judge Kleifield’s orders. 

Having considered the parties’ written submissions and oral argument in response to the OSC, the Court is hereby issuing this revised evidentiary sanctions order in connection with Plaintiff’s motion for terminating sanctions, or, alternatively, evidentiary sanctions.

1.  Plaintiff’s request for terminating sanctions is DENIED.

2. Plaintiff’s request for alternative relief pursuant to Cal. Code Civ. P. §2023.030(b), (c) is GRANTED along the lines set forth below.

3. Based on Defendant’s failure to comply with the Court’s order requiring Defendant to provide further responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Admissions, the following facts shall be deemed admitted by Plaintiff’s Request for Admissions (“RFA’s”) pursuant to Cal. Code Civ. P. §2023.030(b):

·       RFA No. 4:  “Between May 2018 and October 2018 a vast majority of purchases made by Defendant were for “luxury” items like travel and hotels, and expensive clothing and cosmetics.”

·       RFA No.14:  “Between February 2020 and September 2020, Defendant’s then-boyfriend had been paying Defendant’s rent.” 

·       RFA No. 15:  “The proceeds from the $84,000 Loan were used for attorney’s fees in Defendant’s divorce proceedings.”   

4. The following RFA’s are not deemed admitted. 

·       RFA Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 11, 16, and 17: Defendant Seashols served verified responses denying these RFA’s and, thus, she may present defenses based on these denials.

·       RFA’s 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13:  These RFA’s are not deemed admitted and, thus, Seashols may present defenses based on these denials

5.  Pursuant to Cal. Code Civ. P §2023.030(c), Defendant is prohibited from introducing the testimony of any witness she did not identify in discovery.  Defendant identified the following 2 witnesses in her verified responses to Form Interrogatories, whom she may call to testify at trial: 

            a. Plaintiff Janice Clark

            b. Defendant Courtney Seashols

6. Pursuant to Cal. Code Civ. P §2023.030(c), Defendant is prohibited from introducing any new documents sought in Plaintiff’s request for production of documents that she did not produce to Plaintiff. 

Defendant produced the following documents to Plaintiff in discovery.  Defendant is permitted to introduce these documents at trial:

1. December 26, 2019: Residential Lease and other related documents for property 3150 Santa Maria Rd., Topanga, CA 90290.  

2. October 14, 2018: Email from Janice Clark to Courtney Seashols regarding their current personal relationship and situation.

3. February 7, 2020: Email from Janice Clark to Courtney Seashols asking Seashols to sign Promissory Note and attached Promissory Note.

4. May 27, 2022:  Email from Janice Clark to Courtney Seashols regarding money borrowed and repayment.

5. November 13, 2022: Demand Letter from Janice Clark to Courtney Seashols regarding repayment of loan from proceeds of 595,000 shares of Dosist Stock and Irrevocable Letter of Direction

6. September 6, 2020: Email from Janice Clark to Courtney Seashols and Matt Seashols regarding encounter that day and her right to see her grandchildren.

7. September 1, 2020 to September 6, 2020: Email chain between Janice Clark and Country Seashols regarding repayment of loan from security deposit and Dosist stocks.

8. July 29, 2020 to July 30, 2020: Email chain between Janice Clark and Courtney Seashols regarding repayment of loan from security deposit and Dosist stocks.

9. May 15, 2020: Email from Janice Clark to Courtney Seashols asking Seashols to sign Promissory Note.

10. December 12, 2019: Email from Janice Clark to Suzanne and Mike Seashols regarding Courtney Seashols’ daughter’s learning disabilities and Janice’s loan that she will pay to ensure she goes to a better school.

11. November 11, 2018: Email from Janice Clark to Courtney Seashols regarding a drafted email to send to Matt Seashols requesting he pay for his daughter’s tutoring.

12. April 1, 2019 to April 5, 2019:  Email chain between Janice Clark and Courtney Seashols regarding AMEX card and payments.

13. December 23, 2020: Email chain between Janice Clark and Matt Seashols regarding Matt and Courtney Seashols’ children.

14. December 1, 2020: Email from Janice Clark to Courtney Seashols regarding Clark’s relationship with Seashols’ children and the repayment of her debt.

15. March 16, 2018: Forwarded Email from Janice Clark to Courtney Seashols regarding loan for school tuition in the amount of $20,000

16. January 3, 2020: Cashier Check Purchase to Craig Derecat for amount of $47,320.00

17. December 31, 2019: Domestic Wire Funds Debit Ernest Vojdani for amount of $7,118.20

18. December 31, 2019: Wired Funds Deposit from Janice Clark for amount of $84,000.

19. November 29, 2018: Changes made to renter’s insurance policy regarding property 6771 Wandermere Rd. Malibu, CA 90265-4135.

20. October 25, 2018:   First National Insurance Company of America Renter’s Policy Declarations and related documents regarding property 6771 Wandermere Rd. Malibu, CA 90265-4135.

            7.  Defendant failed to comply with the Court’s order directing Defendant to provide further response to Form Interrogatories Nos. 2.3 and 2.6. Pursuant to Cal. Code Civ. P §2023.030(c),  Defendant is prohibited from introducing any new facts and defenses encompassed by Form Interrogatory Nos. 2.3 and 2.6.

             8.  The following defenses in Defendant’s Response to Form Interrogatories are not prohibited:

·       Failure to State Claim

·       Statute of Limitations

·       Lack of Standing

·       Ratification/Consent

·       No Actual or Reasonable Reliance

·       Lack of Causation

·       Economic Loss Doctrine

·       Conditions Precedent

·       Estoppel

·       Laches

·       Failure to Mitigate Damages

·       Waiver

·       Unclean Hands

·       Accord and Satisfaction

·       Novation

·       Right to Assert Additional Affirmative Defenses

9. Presentation at trial of the following matters asserted in Defendant’s Responses to Form Interrogatories are not prohibited:

·       “The responding party’s investigation into this matter is continuing. The propounding party may have committed insurance fraud in violation of Penal Code § 550.”

·       “Ms. Seashols did not borrow any money from Plaintiff Clark in or about April 2016. Ms. Seashols’ child was having trouble with reading, and Plaintiff Clark agreed to pay for an intensive tutoring program run by Lindamood-Bell. Plaintiff Clark never gave any money for the tutoring program to Ms. Seashols; she obtained a loan from an educational funding company, and the educational lender paid Lindamood-Bell directly. This was a gift from Plaintiff to her grandchild, not a loan from Plaintiff to Ms. Seashols.”

·       “Ms. Seashols did not ask Plaintiff to open up a new credit card account; she asked to be added as an authorized user to Plaintiff’s existing credit card account. Ms. Seashols paid the monthly charges through April 2019, and only ceased doing so when Plaintiff submitted a fraudulent claim to Ms. Seashols’ insurance company seeking reimbursement of the cost of personal property which, according to Plaintiff, was stored at Ms. Seashols’ house when the house was destroyed in a fire. In fact, the property was not stored at Ms. Seashols’ home, and the claim was fraudulent. Ms. Seashols does not know the precise amount of the last unpaid monthly statement.”

·       “Ms. Seashols was going through an extremely contentious divorce and custody battle at the time the loan was made, and her house had recently burned down in a fire. Ms. Seashols was in need of money to care for herself and for her children – that is why she asked Plaintiff for a loan. She does not recall “pressuring” Plaintiff for the money. Ms. Seashols admits that the $84,000 is still owed, because the condition precedent for repayment – Ms. Seashols’ sale of stock in her ex-husband’s closely-held cannabis company – has not yet occurred.”

·       “The alleged breach of any alleged oral agreement to repay Lindamood-Bell was more than two years prior to the filing of the Complaint, as were the alleged breaches of oral agreements to repay Amex charges.”

·       “The payment for the Lindamood-Bell reading program was a gift. The condition precedent for repayment of the $84,000 loan – the sale of Ms. Seashols’ stock in her ex-husband’s cannabis company – has not yet occurred.”

·       At the time the $84,000 loan was made, Plaintiff was well aware that Ms. Seashols was going through a difficult divorce and desperately needed money. To the extent that Ms. Seashols was upset and complained about her financial fears and anxieties to her mother, Plaintiff did not take those complaints literally.”

·       Plaintiff submitted a fraudulent claim to Ms. Seashols’ insurance company seeking reimbursement of the cost of personal property which, according to Plaintiff, was stored at Ms. Seashols’ house when the house was destroyed in a fire. In fact, the property was not stored at Ms. Seashols’ home, and the claim was fraudulent.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

_________________________________

 Judge Michael C. Small

May 6, 2024