Judge: Robert B. Broadbelt, Case: 23STCV02331, Date: 2025-01-23 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: 23STCV02331    Hearing Date: January 23, 2025    Dept: 53

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – Central District

Department 53

MOVING PARTY:                 Defendant Airgas USA, LLC

RESPONDING PARTY:       Plaintiff Joe Ledesma

Motion for Terminating Sanctions

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

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

The court denies defendant Airgas USA, LLC’s requests for judicial notice (1) as to exhibit A, because that matter is not relevant to the court’s disposition of this motion, and (2) as to exhibit B, because (i) rulings from other trial courts do not have binding or persuasive value on this court, and (ii) that matter is not relevant to the court’s disposition of this motion.  (Malek Media Group LLC v. AXWG Corp. (2020) 58 Cal.App.5th 817, 825; Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 8.1115.)

EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS

The court rules on plaintiff Joe Ledesma’s evidentiary objections, filed on January 7, 2025, as follows:

Objections Nos. 1-15 are overruled.

Objections Noa. 16-17 are sustained.

DISCUSSION

            Defendant Airgas USA, LLC (“Defendant”) moves the court for an order imposing terminating sanctions against plaintiff Joe Ledesma (“Plaintiff”) on the ground that Plaintiff did not comply with the court’s October 20, 2023 and March 27, 2024 orders.

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.)¿ “Misuses 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).)¿ “When exercising its discretion to determine which form of sanction is most appropriate for a discovery violation, a trial court should consider various factors, including ‘the importance of the materials that were not produced—from the perspective of the offended party’s ability to litigate the case—and what prejudice, if any, the offended party suffered….’”¿ (Victor Valley Union High School District v. Superior Court of San Bernardino County (2023) 91 Cal.App.5th 1121, 1158.)¿ 

On October 20, 2023, the court issued two orders granting Defendant’s (1) motion to compel Plaintiff’s further responses to certain of its Form Interrogatories – Employment, and   (2) motion to compel Plaintiff’s further responses to certain of its Requests for Production of Documents.  (Oct. 20, 2023 Order as to Interrogatories, p. 2:10-22; Oct. 20, 2023 Order as to Requests, p. 2:10-20.)  The court ordered Plaintiff serve further, full and complete answers and to produce responsive documents to the discovery within 20 days of the date of the orders.  (Ibid.)  Thereafter, on March 27, 2024, the court issued an order (1) finding that Defendant had shown that Plaintiff did not fully comply with the court’s October 20, 2023 order granting Defendant’s motion to compel Plaintiff’s further responses to the Form Interrogatories – Employment because Plaintiff did not (i) produce the subject discovery within 20 days of the date of the court’s order, (ii) serve complete answers to interrogatories numbers 204.2, subdivision (c), 204.5, and 210.2, and (iii) produce responsive documents within 20 days of the court’s order, but (2) exercising its discretion to deny Defendant’s request for terminating, issue, and evidence sanctions.  (Mar. 27, 2024 Order, pp. 2:24-3:11.)  However, the court ordered Plaintiff to serve on Defendant full and complete answers to those interrogatories and further responses to certain document demands within 20 days of the date of the court’s order.  (Mar. 27, 2024 Order, p. 5:11-14.)  

Defendant contends that Plaintiff still has not complied with the court’s orders by failing to serve properly verified and accurate discovery responses.  The court finds that Defendant has not met its burden to show that Plaintiff has willfully failed to comply with the court’s October 20, 2023 and March 27, 2024 orders and therefore denies Defendant’s motion.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030, subd. (d).)

Defendant has submitted evidence showing that, on April 15, 2024, Plaintiff served his second supplemental, verified responses to Defendant’s interrogatories and requests for production of documents.  (Ehsani-Nia Decl., Ex. 17, Pl. Second Supp. Responses to Form Interrogatories and Ex. 18, Pl. Second Supp. Responses to Requests for Production of Documents.)  The court acknowledges that Defendant has also submitted the original deposition transcript of Plaintiff, in which Plaintiff testified that he did not recognize the document entitled “Plaintiff’s Second Supplemental Response to Form Interrogatories Employment Law, Set One.”  (Ehsani-Nia Decl., Ex. 38, Pl. Dep., pp. 177:15-178:1.)  However, even though Plaintiff testified that he did not recognize that document and did not recall signing that document, when asked if he signed that document on April 15, 2024, Plaintiff testified, “Yes.”  (Ehsani-Nia Decl., Ex. 38, Pl. Dep., p. 178:5-11.)  Plaintiff also testified, twice, that he’d seen the document entitled “Plaintiff’s Second Supplemental Response to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One,” before stating “No, I haven’t seen this one.”  (Ehsani-Nia Decl., Ex. 38, Pl. Dep., p. 175:9-23.)  Similarly, although he testified that he did not recall signing this document, Plaintiff testified that he did sign that document.  (Ehsani-Nia Decl., Ex. 38, Pl. Dep., p. 176:3-13.)

Thus, the court finds that Defendant did not show, based on its own evidence, that Plaintiff did not verify his supplemental responses to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories – Employment and Requests for Production of Documents.

Moreover, in his opposition, Plaintiff has shown that, after Defendant filed the pending motion and within the time permitted by Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.520, he made corrections to his deposition transcript.  (Rand-Lewis Decl., ¶ 17 [Plaintiff’s deposition was forwarded to Plaintiff for review on November 25, 2024]; Rand-Lewis Decl., Ex. A, Pl. Deposition Corrections to November 20, 2024 Deposition dated December 24, 2024; Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.520, subd. (b) [“For 30 days following each notice under subdivision (a), unless the attending parties and the deponent agree on the record or otherwise in writing to a longer or shorter time period, the deponent may change the form or the substance of the answer to a question, and may either approve the transcript of the deposition by signing or, or refuse to approve the transcript by not signing it”].)  Pursuant to those corrections, Plaintiff testified that (1) he spoke to his counsel the month before the November 2024 deposition, and (2) he recognized the Second Supplemental response to Form Interrogatories Employment Law, Set One.  (Ehsani-Nia Decl., Ex. 38, Pl. Dep., pp. 10:25-11:3 and Rand-Lewis Decl., Ex. A, p. 1 [stating that page 11, line 3 was changed from “year” to “month”]; Ehsani-Nia Decl., Ex. 38, Pl. Dep., pp. 177:20-178:1 and Rand-Lewis Decl., Ex. A, p. 2 [changing “No” to “Yes”].) 

The court notes that Defendant asserts that the court can consider the original deposition transcript.  But (1) the authority on which Defendant relies concerned a party’s attempt to change their deposition transcript after 19 months in order to oppose a pending motion for summary judgment, and did not concern a party’s making corrections within the time authorized by statute, and (2) as set forth above, Plaintiff originally testified that he did sign the verification pages for the discovery that is the subject of this motion.  (Ehsani-Nia Decl., Ex. 38, Pl. Dep., p. 178:5-11; Gray v. Reeves (1977) 76 Cal.App.3d 567, 573, 574 [stating that the trial court can accept a reliable admission against interest particularly “where, as here, the deponent waits 19 months to make the changes and is then inspired to make the changes by pressures attending an apparently grantable motion for summary judgment”].) 

Further, Defendant has not (1) presented adequate argument and analysis to establish that Plaintiff’s testimony, to the extent it is inconsistent with his written responses, shows that he willfully violated the court’s October 20, 2023 and March 27, 2024 orders, or (2) shown that Plaintiff did not verify the subject discovery, or authorize the use of his signature to verify that discovery, solely because his signatures on the verification pages may look similar.

Thus, the court finds that Defendant has not met its burden to show that Plaintiff has misused the discovery process.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2023.010, 2023.030.)

The court exercises its discretion to deny Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions against Defendant.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030, subd. (a).)

ORDER

            The court denies defendant Airgas USA, LLC’s motion for terminating sanctions.

            The court orders plaintiff Joe Ledesma to give notice of this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:  January 23, 2025

_____________________________

Robert B. Broadbelt III

Judge of the Superior Court