Judge: Robert B. Broadbelt, Case: 20STCV35881, Date: 2023-09-29 Tentative Ruling

Tentative rulings are sometimes, but not always, posted. The purpose of posting a tentative ruling is to to help focus the argument. The posting of a tentative ruling is not an invitation for the filing of additional papers shortly before the hearing.

Case Number: 20STCV35881    Hearing Date: October 10, 2023    Dept: 53

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – Central District

Department 53

MOVING PARTY:                 Plaintiff Mary Jane Pardo      

RESPONDING PARTIES:     Defendants Jason Eugene Burt, Ladera Lending, LLC, and Coast 2 Coast Funding Group, Inc.        

Motion for Evidence and Monetary Sanctions

The court considered the moving and reply papers filed in connection with this motion.  The court disregards and orders stricken the opposition papers filed by defendants Jason Eugene Burt, Ladera Lending, LLC, and Coast 2 Coast Funding Group, Inc. on September 28, 2023, because those papers were not filed nine court days before the hearing on this motion.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 1005, subd. (b).)  

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff Mary Jane Pardo (“Plaintiff”) moves the court for an order (1) imposing an evidence sanction against defendant Jason Eugene Burt (“Defendant”) prohibiting him from introducing at trial any evidence concerning his communications with defendant Alex Camacho (“Camacho”) beyond what Plaintiff will introduce, and (2) awarding monetary sanctions in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant in the amount of $6,187.50.  Plaintiff requests this relief on the ground that Defendant provided a false response to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of Documents, number 1.

First, the court denies Plaintiff’s request for evidentiary sanctions.

“Any motion involving the content of a discovery request or the responses to such a request must be accompanied by a separate statement.  The motions that require a separate statement include a motion: [¶¶] (7) For issue or evidentiary sanctions.”  (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.1345, subd. (a)(7).)  Because Plaintiff requests the court to impose evidentiary sanctions against Defendant, Plaintiff was required to file a separate statement.  (Ibid.)  However, Plaintiff did not file a separate statement with the court.  Thus, the court finds that Plaintiff has not complied with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1345 and therefore denies Plaintiff’s request for evidence sanctions.  (Mills v. U.S. Bank (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 871, 893 [courts have the discretion to deny motions that do not comply with the separate statement requirement].)

Second, the court grants Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions.

On March 17, 2021, Defendant served his operative response to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of Documents, number 1, which demanded all documents reflecting Defendant’s communications with Camacho from January 1, 2016, to the present.  (Serova Decl., ¶ 9; Serova Decl., Ex. 10, p. 2:16-18.)  Defendant stated that he “does not have any documents in his possession custody or control reflecting communications with defendant Camacho. . . .  Records or copies of such communications were never retained or stored and no longer exist.”  (Id., pp. 2:25-3:2.)  However, at his deposition held on December 8, 2022, Defendant produced text messages exchanged with Camacho.  (Serova Decl., ¶ 12.)  When asked why he did not produce the text messages in response to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of Documents, Defendant testified that (1) he “provided every document that [he] thought [he] needed to provide[,]” (2) he was sure he went through his text messages when he prepared the responses, and (3) he did not know “why [he] didn’t produce them” because “[t]he fact is [he] always had them” and had not deleted the messages.  (Serovia Decl., Ex. 15, Def. Dep., pp. 220:13-21, 221:12-14.)  Defendant did not file a timely opposition with the court establishing that his discovery response was true or otherwise refuting the evidence submitted by Plaintiff.

Thus, the court finds that Plaintiff has shown that Defendant’s response that he did not have any documents in his possession, custody, or control that reflected communications between Defendant and Camacho was false, and that Defendant engaged in a misuse of the discovery process by serving a false response to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of Documents, number 1.  The court therefore grants Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions against Defendant.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030, subd. (a).)  The court finds that $6,187.50 is a reasonable amount of sanctions to impose against Defendant in connection with this motion.  (Serova Decl., ¶ 19.)

ORDER

The court grants in part plaintiff Mary Jane Pardo’s motion for evidence and monetary sanctions as follows.

The court denies plaintiff Mary Jane Pardo’s request for evidence sanctions.

The court grants plaintiff Mary Jane Pardo’s request for monetary sanctions.  The court orders defendant Jason Eugene Burt to pay sanctions to plaintiff Mary Jane Pardo in the amount of $6,187.50 within 30 days of the date of this order.

The court orders plaintiff Mary Jane Pardo to give notice of this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:  October 10, 2023

_____________________________

Robert B. Broadbelt III

Judge of the Superior Court