Judge Nathan Vu, Case 30-2020-01160766 2022-12-19 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Nathan Vu, Case: 30-2020-01160766, Date: 2022-12-19 Tentative Ruling

Please Note: The hearing on this matter is scheduled for 8:30 A.M.

Order to Show Cause re: Contempt and Order to Show Cause re: Dismissal

Defendant Walt Disney Parks and Resorts U.S., Inc.’s Order to Show Cause re: Contempt is DISMISSED without prejudice and the hearing on the Order to Show Cause re: Contempt is taken OFF CALENDAR.

The court ORDERS that Non-Party Anaheim Global Medical Center pay to Defendant WDPR sanctions in the amount of $2,518.40 within 30 days of service of the notice of ruling.

On 05/06/2022, Defendant Walt Disney Parks and Resorts U.S., Inc. (Defendant WDPR) filed a motion for contempt and for sanctions against Non-Party Anaheim Global Medical Center (AGMC).

On 07/11/2022, this court, acting through a temporary judge, issued a ruling granting the motion and ordering Defendant WDPR to prepare an Order to Show Cause for the court’s signature as well as an affidavit in support of the Order to Show Cause.

At subsequent hearings on 09/12/2022 and 10/31/2022, the hearing on the Order to Show Cause could not proceed because Defendant WDPR had failed to submit to the court an Order to Show Cause or supporting affidavit, and had not personally served the Order to Show Cause papers on AGMC.

The court continued the hearing to 12/19/2022 with orders that Defendant WDPR submit the Order to Show Cause for the court’s signature and personally serve the Order to Show Cause papers on AGMC. However, as of 12/19/2022, no signed Order to Show Cause appears in the court’s files.

In addition, Defendant WDRP filed a proof of service but it only shows service of a “[Proposed] Order on Order to Show Cause Hearing for Contempt Against Non-Party Anaheim Global Medical Center.” There is no indication that the signed Order to Show Cause was served on AGMC.

Upon further review of the motion papers and case files, it appears that there is some confusion regarding the procedures and remedies with respect to contempts.

The remedies available with respect to contempts are primarily criminal in nature. A person adjudged to be guilty of contempt may be incarcerated for up 5 days, ordered to pay a fine of up to $1,000 to the court, ordered to perform community service, and order to pay the attorney’s fees of the other party in connection with the contempt proceedings. (See Civil Procedure Code, s 1218, subds. (a) & (c).) There is no provision in the contempt statutes for the payment of sanctions to another party.

In light of the criminal penalties, “[a]lleged contemnors are entitled to most constitutional rights guaranteed to all criminally accused persons.^” (In re Witherspoon (1984) 162 Cal.App.3d 1000, 1001-1002.) Thus, the order to show cause and supporting affidavit “’must state facts constituting the offense . . . . No intendments or presumptions can be indulged in aid of the sufficiency of the proceedings . . . and the accused is entitled to be clearly and fairly apprised of the particular accusation against him.” (Application of Hinman (1966) 239 Cal.App.3d 845, 848-849, quoting Warner v. Superior Court (1954) 126 Cal.App.2d 821, 824.) Without a sufficient order to show cause and supporting affidavit, the court is without jurisdiction. (Ibid.)

In addition, the defendant must be arraigned and is entitled to a trial in which the charges must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, in which the defendant may assert their Constitutional rights (including the right against self-incrimination), and in which the defendant is entitled to appointed counsel if they are indigent. (In re Witherspoon, supra, 162 Cal.App.3d at p. 1002; County of Santa Clara v. Superior Court (1992) 2 Cal.App.4th 1686, 1693.)

In this case, the only contempt penalties that Defendant WDPR sought were sanctions payable to Defendant WDPR, which are not available under Civil Procedure Code section 1218. Further, despite having over five months to do so, Defendant WDPR has not submitted a sufficient order to show cause re: contempt and supporting affidavit to the court for signature and has not personally served the signed contempt documents upon AGMC. Therefore, the court will dismiss the Order to Show Cause re: Contempt.

Discovery Sanctions

However, Defendant WDPR’s motion also requested discovery sanctions for AGMC’s failure to appear and produce documents in response to a deposition subpoena for production of business records.

The Civil Procedure Code states that: “If a deponent upon whom a deposition subpoena has been served fail to attend a deposition or refuses to be sworn as a witness, the court may impose on the deponent sanctions . . .” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.440, subd. (b).) In addition, the Civil Procedure Code requires the court to impose monetary sanctions against a party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel the production of documents specified in the deposition notice or a deposition subpoena, “unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2025.480, subd. (j).)

Further, it is a misuse of the discovery process to “fail[] to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery.” (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2023.010, subd. (d).) The court is authorized to “impose a monetary sanction order that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct.” (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2023.030, subd. (a).)

Here, Defendant WDPR presented evidence that it properly served AGMC with a subpoena deposition for production of business documents ordering AGMC to appear for deposition on 04/23/2021 at a location in Lake Forest, California, and to produce specified documents at that time. (Folan Decl. 05/06/2022 , ¶ 3 & Exh. A.) Defendant WDPR also showed that AGMC failed to produce certain records specified in the deposition subpoena and despite repeated attempts to meet and confer on the issue, have never produced said documents. (Folan Decl. 05/06/2022, ¶¶ 4-12; Folan Decl. 12/05/2022, ¶ 15.)

AGMC has not filed an opposition or otherwise contested Defendant WDPR’s evidence. The court will grant to Defendant WDPR sanctions against AGMC in the amount of $2,518.40.

Defendant WDPR shall give notice of this ruling.