Judge: Robert B. Broadbelt, Case: 22STCV10556, Date: 2023-08-15 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: 22STCV10556    Hearing Date: February 8, 2024    Dept: 53

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – Central District

Department 53

MOVING PARTY:                 Plaintiff Kimberlina Whettam & Associates, Inc.     

RESPONDING PARTY:       Defendant Wendy Bruget

Motion for Terminating Sanctions and Monetary Sanctions

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

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff Kimberlina Whettam & Associates, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) moves the court for an order (1) imposing terminating sanctions against defendant Wendy Bruget (“Defendant”) by striking her answer to the First Amended Complaint, and (2) awarding monetary sanctions in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant in the amount of $4,321.

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.”¿¿¿¿ 

On October 25, 2023, the court granted Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendant’s initial responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, and ordered Defendant (1) to serve full and complete verified responses, without objections, to the discovery, and to produce to Plaintiff all responsive documents in Defendant’s possession, custody, or control within 20 days of the date of service of the order, and (2) to pay monetary sanctions to Plaintiff in the amount of $1,540 within 30 days of the date of service of the order.  (Oct. 25, 2023 Order, p. 2:14-26.)  Plaintiff filed a “Notice of Ruling” on October 25, 2023, notifying the parties (including Defendant) of the court’s order granting its motion to compel.  (Pl. Notice of Ruling, Oct. 25, 2023, Proof of Service.)

In support of its motion, Plaintiff produced evidence showing that Defendant did not serve responses and produce responsive documents within 20 days of the date of service of the court’s order.  (Ezra Decl., p. 13:16-17 [as of December 8, 2023, counsel for Plaintiff “ha[d] received no further follow up from [Defendant’s counsel] as to when the documents would be produced or the sanctions paid”].)  In opposition, Defendant asserts that she served Plaintiff with her responses on January 23, 2024.  (Day Decl., ¶ 2.)  The court notes that, while Defendant has not submitted evidence of those responses with her opposition papers, Plaintiff’s reply papers do not dispute that responses have been served.  (Reply, p. 2:6-8 [acknowledging that Defendant served documents on January 23, 2024].)

First, the court finds, after considering the totality of the circumstances and the representations by the parties that Defendant has since served responses and produced responsive documents, that terminating sanctions against Defendant are not warranted.  (Los Defensores, Inc. v. Gomez (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 377, 290.)  To the extent that Plaintiff believes that the responses served by Defendant are incomplete or deficient, Plaintiff may seek other appropriate relief to obtain further responses. 

The court therefore denies Plaintiff’s request that the court impose terminating sanctions against Defendant.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030, subd. (d).)

Second, the court finds that Defendant violated the court’s October 25, 2023 order by failing to serve responses within the time ordered by the court.  (Opp., p. 2:6-7 [“Admittedly, the responses were served after the twenty-day period described in the Court’s ruling of October 25, 2023”].) 

The court therefore grants Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2023.030, subd. (a), 2023.010, subd. (g) [misuse of the discovery process includes disobeying a court order to provide discovery].)  The court finds that $3,412.50 ((4.5 hours x $745 hourly rate) + $60 filing fee) is a reasonable amount of sanctions to impose against Defendant in connection with this motion.  (Ezra Decl., ¶ 8.)

ORDER

            The court grants in part plaintiff Kimberlina Whettam & Associates, Inc.’s motion for terminating sanctions and monetary sanctions as follows.

            The court denies plaintiff Kimberlina Whettam & Associates, Inc.’s motion for terminating sanctions.

            The court grants plaintiff Kimberlina Whettam & Associates, Inc.’s motion for monetary sanctions.

            The court orders defendant Wendy Bruget to pay sanctions to plaintiff Kimberlina Whettam & Associates, Inc. in the amount of $3,412.50 within 30 days of the date of this order.

            The court orders plaintiff Kimberlina Whettam & Associates, Inc. to give notice of this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:  February 8, 2024

_____________________________

Robert B. Broadbelt III

Judge of the Superior Court