Judge: Robert B. Broadbelt, Case: 21STCV32062, Date: 2023-12-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV32062    Hearing Date: February 27, 2024    Dept: 53

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – Central District

Department 53

MOVING PARTIES:             Defendants Joe Brown, Sally Brown, and Golden Valley Ventures, Inc.

RESPONDING PARTY:       Plaintiff Ryan Soto

Motion for Terminating and Monetary Sanctions

The court considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers filed in connection with this motion.[1]

DISCUSSION

Defendants Joe Brown (“J. Brown”), Sally Brown (“S. Brown”), and Golden Valley Ventures, Inc. (collectively, “Defendants”) move the court for an order (1) imposing terminating sanctions against plaintiff Ryan Soto (“Plaintiff”) and dismissing his Complaint against Defendants with prejudice, and (2) awarding monetary sanctions in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiff in the amount of $1,955.

If a party engages in a misuse of the discovery process, the court may impose monetary, issue, evidence, or terminating sanctions.¿ (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030.)¿ Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.010 provides, in relevant part, that “[m]isuses of the discovery process include, but are not limited to, the following: . . . . (d) Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery. . . . . (g) Disobeying a court order to provide discovery.”¿¿ (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010, subds. (d), (g).)  “The trial court may order a terminating sanction for discovery abuse ‘after considering the totality of the circumstances: [the] conduct of the party to determine if the actions were willful; the detriment to the propounding party; and the number of formal and informal attempts to obtain the discovery.’”  (Los Defensores, Inc. v. Gomez (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 377, 390.)

On December 21, 2023, the court issued an order granting Defendants’ motion to compel Plaintiff to serve responses (1) to J. Brown’s Form Interrogatories, Set One, (2) to S. Brown’s Form Interrogatories, Set One, and (3) to J. Brown’s Requests for Production of Documents, Set One.  (Dec. 21, 2023 Order, p. 2:6-7, 2:14-15, 3:23-24.)  The court ordered Plaintiff to serve responses to that discovery within 20 days of the date of service of the court’s order.  (Dec. 21, 2023 Order, pp. 3:16-4:2.)  Defendants served Plaintiff with notice of the court’s ruling on December 22, 2023.  (Dec. 22, 2023 Notice of Ruling.) 

The court notes that Defendants’ notice of ruling (and their pending motion) state that the court ordered Plaintiff to serve responses and pay monetary sanctions within 10 days of the court’s order.  (Dec. 22, 2023 Notice of Ruling, ¶¶ 1-5; Mot., p. 4:2-7.)  This is incorrect.  The court ordered Plaintiff (1) to serve responses within 20 days of the date of service of the order, and (2) to pay monetary sanctions within 30 days of the date of service of the order.  (Dec. 21, 2023 Order, pp. 3:16-4:4.)  Despite this error, the court finds that Defendants have presented evidence showing that Plaintiff did not comply with the court’s order to serve responses on J. Brown and S. Brown within 20 days of December 22, 2023.  (Garbacz Decl., ¶ 18 [“As of the filing of this motion [on January 24, 2024], we have not received Plaintiff’s discovery responses or payment of sanctions through the mail or electronically”].)

In opposition, Plaintiff has submitted evidence showing that (1) he served, on February 14, 2024, responses to J. Brown’s Form Interrogatories, Set One, and (2) he prepared responses to J. Brown’s Requests for Production, Set One.  (Francisco Decl., Ex. A [Pl. Responses to J. Brown’s Form Interrogatories, Set One], Ex. B [Pl. Responses to J. Brown’s Requests for Production].)  There is no proof of service attached to Plaintiff’s responses to J. Brown’s Requests for Production of Documents.  (Francisco Decl., Ex. B.)  However, the responses were attached to the opposition papers and Defendants’ counsel appears to have confirmed receipt thereof.  (Supp. Garbacz Decl., ¶ 6 [stating that Plaintiff’s counsel’s February 14, 2024 email attached responses to J. Brown’s document demands].)  Defendants’ counsel has also confirmed that “Plaintiff served responses to the form interrogatories served previously by [defendant S. Brown]” on February 20, 2024.  (Supp. Garbacz Decl., ¶ 8.)  Plaintiff has not produced documents responsive to J. Brown’s document demands, but he has presented evidence showing that he is unable to produce documents because his counsel has lost or misplaced his file.  (Francisco Decl., ¶ 5 [“Because Plaintiff’s counsel misplaced or lost the file of this matter, Plaintiff was unable to produce any of the requested documents”]; Supp. Garbacz Decl., ¶ 6.)

Thus, the court finds that Plaintiff has belatedly complied, in part, with the court’s December 21, 2023 order by serving responses to J. Brown and S. Brown’s Form Interrogatories, Set One, and by serving responses to J. Brown’s Requests for Production of Documents.  Plaintiff has not fully complied with the court’s order because he has not produced responsive documents to J. Brown’s Requests for Production of Documents, as set forth above.  (Francisco Decl., ¶ 5.)  The court finds, after considering the totality of the circumstances—including Plaintiff’s partial compliance with the court’s order and the evidence showing that Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the order compelling him to produce documents was not willful since his attorney has lost or misplaced his file—that terminating sanctions against Plaintiff are not justified.  (Los Defensores, Inc., supra, 223 Cal.App.4th at p. 390.)  The court notes that Defendants may have other remedies available to address the spoilation of evidence caused by Plaintiff’s counsel’s failure to preserve evidence.  (Cedars-Sinai Medical Center v. Superior Court (1998) 18 Cal.4th 1, 17.)  

In order to address the prejudice to defendants J. Brown and S. Brown as a result of Plaintiff’s failure to timely and fully comply with the court’s order to serve responses to their discovery, the court grants defendants J. Brown and S. Brown’s request for monetary sanctions against Plaintiff.  (Victor Valley Union High School District v. Superior Court of San Bernardino County (2023) 91 Cal.App.5th 1121, 1158 [discovery sanctions “should be appropriate to the dereliction, and should not exceed that which is required to protect the interests of the party entitled to but denied discovery”] [internal quotations omitted]; Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2023.010, subd. (g), 2023.030, subd. (a).)  The court finds that $1,955 is a reasonable amount of sanctions to impose against Plaintiff in connection with this motion.  (Garbacz Decl., ¶¶ 21-23.)  

The court denies Defendants’ request, made for the first time in reply, that the court also order Plaintiff to pay sanctions in the amount of $1,500, payable to the court, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 177.5.  (Reply, p. 4:9-13.)

ORDER

The court grants in part and denies in part defendants Joe Brown, Sally Brown, and Golden Valley Ventures, Inc.’s motion for terminating and monetary sanctions as follows.

The court denies defendants Joe Brown, Sally Brown, and Golden Valley Ventures, Inc.’s motion for terminating sanctions.

The court grants defendants Joe Brown and Sally Brown’s motion for monetary sanctions.

The court orders plaintiff Ryan Soto to pay monetary sanctions to defendants Joe Brown and Sally Brown in the amount of $1,955 within 30 days of the date of service of this order.

The court orders defendants Joe Brown, Sally Brown, and Golden Valley Ventures, Inc. to give notice of this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:  February 27, 2024

_____________________________

Robert B. Broadbelt III

Judge of the Superior Court