Judge: Salvatore Sirna, Case: 24PSCV01245, Date: 2025-03-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24PSCV01245    Hearing Date: March 4, 2025    Dept: G

Plaintiff Leaf Capital Funding, LLC’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions for Failure to Respond to Discovery

Respondent: NO OPPOSITION

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff Leaf Capital Funding, LLC’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions for Failure to Respond to Discovery is DENIED.

BACKGROUND

This is a breach of contract action. On April 18, 2024, Plaintiff Leaf Capital Funding, LLC (Leaf Capital) filed a complaint against Defendants Inno-Optical Corp. (Inno-Optical), Sharon Y. Lee, Billy K. Lee, and Does 1-100, alleging the following causes of action: (1) breach of written agreement against Inno-Optical, (2) open book account against Inno-Optical, (3) account stated against Inno-Optical, (4) breach of personal guaranty against Sharon Lee, and (5) breach of personal guaranty against Billy Lee.

On July 26, 2024, Sharon Lee filed an answer.

On August 23, 2024, the court entered default against Inno-Optical and Billy Lee after they failed to timely file an answer.

On December 11, 2024, Leaf Capital filed the present motion. A hearing on the present motion is set for March 4, 2025, along with a trial setting conference and multiple OSCs for sanctions and the striking of Sharon Lee’s answer.

ANALYSIS

Leaf Capital moves for terminating sanctions against Sharon Lee for Sharon Lee’s alleged failure to comply with discovery obligations. For the following reasons, the court DENIES their motion.

Legal Standard

The court may impose a monetary sanction, issue sanction, evidence sanction, terminating sanction, or contempt sanction on a party who engages in conduct that misuses the discovery process. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030.) Misuse of the discovery process includes “[f]ailing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery” and “[d]isobeying a court order to provide discovery.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010, subd. (d), (g).) Because the purpose of sanctions is remedial and not punitive, sanctions should “serve to remedy the harm caused to the party suffering the discovery misconduct.” (Kwan Software Engineering, Inc. v. Hennings (2020) 58 Cal.App.5th 57, 74.) “[A]bsent unusual circumstances, nonmonetary sanctions are warranted only if a party willfully fails to comply with a court order.” (Aghaian v. Minassian (2021) 64 Cal.App.5th 603, 618-619.) Terminating sanctions should only be ordered when there has been previous noncompliance and it appears a less severe sanction would not be effective. (Link v. Cater (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 1315, 1326.)

Discussion

On August 21, 2024, Leaf Capital served discovery requests on Sharon Lee that included special interrogatories, form interrogatories, requests for production, and requests for admissions. (Gost Decl., ¶ 2.) After Sharon Lee failed to respond, Leaf Capital’s counsel sent a letter to Sharon Lee on October 3, 2024, that requested responses by October 10, 2024. (Gost Decl., ¶ 3, Ex. 2.) On November 19, 2024, the court held an informal discovery conference (IDC) and ordered Sharon Lee to provide verified responses to Leaf Capital’s discovery requests without objection by December 3, 2024. (Gost Decl., ¶ 6, Ex. 5.) Sharon Lee did not provide any responses by the December 3 deadline and has yet to do so. (Gost Decl., ¶ 7.)

Leaf Capital argues Sharon Lee’s failure to comply with the court’s November 19 order provides grounds for terminating sanctions. (Motion, p. 3:7-13.) But while the court’s November 19 ruling is phrased as an order, it is in effect an IDC recommendation as no formal motion to compel was before the court. The ruling also specifically directs Leaf Capital to file the appropriate motion in limine if no response is received. Leaf Capital has not done so and without a prior order compelling Sharon Lee to provide discovery responses, there is no pattern of noncompliance with discovery orders for the court to sanction.

Accordingly, the court DENIES Leaf Capital’s motion.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, Leaf Capital’s motion for terminating sanctions is DENIED.