Judge: Robert B. Broadbelt, Case: 22STCV31051, Date: 2024-11-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV31051    Hearing Date: November 25, 2024    Dept: 53

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – Central District

Department 53

MOVING PARTY:                Plaintiff Richard Rodger Furton

RESPONDING PARTY:       Defendant Mohammad R. Talai-Shahir

Motion to Strike Answer or, Alternatively, for Issue, Evidentiary, and Monetary Sanctions

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

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff Richard Rodger Furton (“Plaintiff”) moves the court for an order striking the answer filed by defendant Mohammad R. Talai-Shahir (“Defendant”) or, alternatively, imposing issue, evidentiary, and/or monetary sanctions against Defendant and in favor of Plaintiff.

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 should consider both the conduct being sanctioned and its effect on the party seeking discovery and, in choosing a sanction, should attempt[] to tailor the sanction to the harm caused by the withheld discovery.”  (Victor Valley Union High School District v. Superior Court of San Bernardino County (2023) 91 Cal.App.5th 1121, 1158 [internal quotation marks and citations omitted].)

On May 22, 2024, the court issued an order (1) granting Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendant’s response to Plaintiff’s Supplemental Interrogatory, and ordering Defendant to serve a full and complete verified answer, without objections, to that interrogatory within 15 days of the date of service of the court’s order, and (2) granting Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendant’s response to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of Documents, Set One (supplemental), and ordering Defendant to serve a full and complete verified response, without objections, and to produce all responsive documents in his possession, custody, or control to that demand within 15 days of the date of service of the court’s order.  (May 22, 2024 Order, p. 3:10-27.)  On May 22, 2024, Plaintiff served counsel for Defendant with notice of the court’s ruling by email.  (May 22, 2024 Notice of Ruling, p. 3 [proof of service].)

Plaintiff filed the pending motion on June 11, 2024.  In support of his motion, Plaintiff presented evidence showing that Defendant had not served responses within the time ordered by the court.  (Spielfogel Decl., ¶ 6 [As of June 11, 2024, counsel’s “office ha[d] not received a response either to the supplemental request for production of documents or the supplemental interrogatory”].)  Defendant has opposed Plaintiff’s motion, asserting that, “[c]ontemporaneously with [the] filing of this Opposition, Defendant’s responses for supplemental discovery requests are being served on Plaintiffs.”  (Nehoray Decl., ¶ 16.)  However, Defendant did not submit evidence in support of this assertion, such that the court cannot determine that Defendant has now complied with the court’s order.  Moreover, Plaintiff’s reply does not clearly state whether Defendant’s responses have or have not been served.

Thus, the court finds that (1) Plaintiff has shown that Defendant did not comply with the court’s May 22, 2024 order by failing to serve responses within the time ordered by the court, and (2) Defendant has not shown that he has since complied with the court’s order.  The court therefore finds that Plaintiff has shown that Defendant engaged in conduct that is a misuse of the discovery process.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010, subds. (d) [it is a misuse of the discovery process to fail to respond to an authorized method of discovery], (g) [it is a misuse of the discovery process to disobey a court order to provide discovery].)  However, the court finds that Plaintiff has not met his burden to show that the court should exercise its discretion to impose terminating sanctions against Defendant based on his failure to comply with the court’s May 22, 2024 order to serve responses to Plaintiff’s supplemental discovery requests.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030, subd. (d).)

The underlying discovery requests (1) ask Defendant to review his responses to all previous interrogatories and, if any of those responses are determined to no longer be correct and complete, to identify the response and state whatever is necessary to make the response correct and complete, and (2) ask Defendant to review his responses to all previous document demands and, if any of those responses are determined to no longer be correct and complete, to identify the response and produce all documents necessary to make the response correct and complete.  (Pl. Mot. to Compel Response to Supp. Interrogatory filed April 11, 2024, Spielfogel Decl., Ex. 1, p. 2:5-13; Pl. Mot. to Compel Response to Supp. Req. for Production filed April 11, 2024, Spielfogel Decl., Ex. 1, p. 2:5-13.)  

While Plaintiff is entitled to Defendant’s responses to this discovery, the court finds that Defendant’s failure to respond to the supplemental discovery requests has not unduly prejudiced Plaintiff or rendered Plaintiff unable to prove his case.  Thus, the court finds that terminating sanctions are inappropriate and would exceed that which is required to protect the interests of Plaintiff as the party entitled to but denied this discovery.  (Victor Valley Union High School District, supra, 91 Cal.App.5th at p. 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 quotation marks and citations omitted].)

The court further finds that Plaintiff has not met his burden to show that the court should exercise its discretion to impose the requested issue and evidence sanctions against Defendant based on his failure to comply with the court’s May 22, 2024 order to serve responses to Plaintiff’s supplemental discovery requests because (1) Plaintiff has requested that the court impose issue sanctions that, inter alia, Defendant breached the lease and the covenant of good faith and fair dealing and engaged in other wrongful conduct, which are not appropriately tailored to the harm caused by Defendant’s failure to respond to discovery requesting the review of his previous discovery responses, and (2) Plaintiff has requested that the court impose evidence sanctions that Defendant not be permitted to testify about material issues in this case, including the termination of the subject lease, his compliance with his obligations thereunder, and his other wrongful conduct, which are not appropriately tailored to the harm caused by Defendant’s failure to respond to discovery requesting the review of his previous discovery responses.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030, subds. (b), (c); Victor Valley Union High School District, supra, 91 Cal.App.5th at p. 1158.)

The court finds that, in order to address the harm caused by Defendant’s failure to respond to this discovery, it is appropriate (1) to order Defendant to serve responses to the subject discovery within 5 days of the date of this order, and (2) to grant Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions in the amount of $2,060 ((5 hours x counsel’s $400 hourly rate) + $60 filing fee).  (Spielfogel Decl., ¶¶ 6-7; Victor Valley Union High School District, supra, 91 Cal.App.5th at p. 1158.)

ORDER

            The court grants in part plaintiff Richard Rodger Furton’s motion to strike answer or, in the alternative, issue, evidentiary, and monetary sanctions as follows.

            The court orders defendant Mohammed R. Talai-Shahir (1) to serve a full and complete verified answer, without objections, to plaintiff Richard Rodger Furton’s Supplemental Interrogatory, which complies with Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.220-2030.250, within 5 days of service of this order, (2) to (i) serve a full and complete verified response, without objections, to plaintiff Richard Rodger Furton’s Request for Production of Documents, Set One (Supplemental), which complies with Code of Civil Procedure sections 2031.210-2031.250, and (ii) to produce to plaintiff Richard Rodger Furton all documents and things in defendant Mohammed R. Talia-Shahir’s possession, custody, or control which are responsive to that supplemental request, within 5 days of service of this order, and (3) to pay to plaintiff Richard Rodger Furton monetary sanctions in the amount of $2,060 within 30 days of service of this order.

            The court denies all other relief requested.

            The court orders plaintiff Richard Rodger Furton to give notice of this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:  November 25, 2024

_____________________________

Robert B. Broadbelt III

Judge of the Superior Court