Judge Steven A. Ellis, Case Number: 20STCV45328, Date: 2023-12-20 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 20STCV45328, Date: 2023-12-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV45328 Hearing Date: March 6, 2024 Dept: 29

Motion for Terminating Sanctions filed by Plaintiff Rosa Erika De Leon Fuentes.

Tentative

The motion for terminating sanctions is denied.

The request for monetary sanctions is granted in part.

Background

On November 25, 2020, Rosa Erika De Leon Fuentes (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint relating to an incident on December 24, 2018, involving Defendants Carmen Maria Godinez, Carmen Denim Inc. (collectively “Defendants”), and Does 1 through 100, alleging five causes of action for (1) Assault, (2) Battery, (3) Intentional infliction of Emotional Distress, (4) Negligence, and (5) Negligent Hiring, Supervision and Retention.

On February 9, 2024, Plaintiff filed a motion for terminating sanctions, and monetary sanctions. No opposition has been filed.

Legal Standard

When a party “fails to obey an order compelling further response to interrogatories, the court may make those orders that are just, including the imposition of an issue sanction, an evidence sanction, or a terminating sanction under Chapter 7 …. In lieu of, or in addition to, that sanction, the court may impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 ….” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (e).)

When a party “fails to obey an order compelling further response [to a request for production], the court may make those orders that are just, including the imposition of an issue sanction, an evidence sanction, or a terminating sanction under Chapter 7 …. In lieu of, or in addition to, that sanction, the court may impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 ….” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (e).)

In Chapter 7, section 2023.030 provides: “To the extent authorized by the chapter governing any particular discovery method or any other provision of this title, the court, after notice to any affected party, person, or attorney, and after opportunity for hearing, may impose the following sanctions against anyone engaging in conduct that is a misuse of the discovery process: ... (d) The court may impose a terminating sanction …." (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.)

The Civil Discovery Act provides for an escalating and “incremental approach to discovery sanctions, starting with monetary sanctions and ending with the ultimate sanction of termination.” (Lopez v. Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York, Inc. (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 566, 604.) Discovery sanctions should be appropriate to and commensurate with the misconduct, and they “should not exceed that which is required to protect the interests of the party entitled to but denied discovery.” (Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 967, 992.) “If a lesser sanction fails to curb misuse, a greater sanction is warranted: continuing misuses of the discovery process warrant incrementally harsher sanctions until the sanction is reached that will curb the abuse.” (Ibid.; see also, e.g., Mileikowsky v. Tenet Healthsystem (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 262, 279-280.)

Terminating sanctions should be used sparingly. (Doppes, supra, 174 Cal.App.4th at p. 992; R.S. Creative, Inc. v. Creative Cotton, Ltd. (1999) 75 Cal. App. 4th 486, 496.) “Although in extreme cases a court has the authority to order a terminating sanction as a first measure, a terminating sanction should generally not be imposed until the court has attempted less severe alternatives and found them to be unsuccessful and/or the record clearly shows lesser sanctions would be ineffective.” (Lopez, supra, 246 Cal.App.4th at p. 604.) But where discovery violations are “willful, preceded by a history of abuse, and the evidence shows that less severe sanctions would not produce compliance with the discovery rules, the trial court is justified in imposing the ultimate sanction.” (Doppes, supra, 174 Cal.App.4th at p. 992.) Repeated and willful violations of discovery orders that prejudice the opposing party may warrant a terminating sanction. (Creed-21 v. City of Wildomar (2017) 18 Cal.App.5th 690, 702; Los Defensores, Inc. v. Gomez (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 377, 390; Biles v. Exxon Mobil Corp. (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1315, 1327; Lang v. Hachman (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 1225, 1246; Collisson X Kaplan v. Hartunian (1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 1611, 1617-1622.)

The primary purpose of discovery sanctions is to obtain compliance with the Civil Discovery Act and the Court’s orders. It is not to punish. (Newland v. Super. Ct. (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 608, 613; Ghanooni v. Super Shuttle of Los Angeles (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 256, 262.) A discovery sanction should not create a “windfall” for a party or place a party in a better position than it would have been if the opposing party had simply complied with its obligations under the Court’s orders and the Civil Discovery Act. (Rutledge v. Hewlett-Packard Co. (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 1164, 1194; see also 2 Weil & Brown, California Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2023), ¶¶ 8:2214-2220.)

A “terminating sanction issued solely because of a failure to pay a monetary discovery sanction is never justified.” (Newland, supra, 40 Cal.App.4th at p. 615.)

Discussion

On January 5, 2024, the Court ordered Defendants to provide code compliant, verified, written responses and documents to Plaintiff’s motion to compel responses to Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories and Request for Production. (Hakim Decl., ¶ 2.)

Plaintiff moves for terminating sanctions against Defendants for failing to provide responses to discovery requests as well as failing to comply with this Court’s order to do so.

Defendants’ failure in providing further discovery responses is substantial discovery abuse. Serious sanctions are warranted for this conduct.

For terminating sanctions, however, a party must present evidence of repeated and willful misuse of the discovery process, as well as evidence that less severe sanctions have not (or likely will not) lead to compliance with the discovery rules. Plaintiff has not, on this record at this time, made such a showing. There has not been a showing of a history or pattern of willful abuse or repeated violations that have not been (or cannot be) cured by lesser sanctions.

Moreover, a discovery sanction should not create a “windfall” for a party or place a party in a better position than it would have been if the opposing party had simply complied with its obligations under the Court’s orders and the Civil Discovery Act. (Rutledge, supra, 238 Cal.App.4th at p. 1194.) Here, at this time, a terminating sanction would create such a windfall for Plaintiff.

The request for a terminating sanction is denied.

Plaintiff does not seek issue or evidence sanctions.

Plaintiff does seek additional monetary sanctions. That request is granted in part. The Court sets sanctions in the amount of $510, based on 1.5 hours of attorney work, multiplied by a reasonable billing rate of $300 per hour for work of this nature, plus the filing fee. (Copeland Decl., ¶ 2.),

The denial of the request for a terminating sanction is without prejudice to Plaintiff seeking other sanctions or seeking a terminating sanction at a later stage of the proceedings, based on a further showing of misuse of the discovery process.

Conclusion

Plaintiff’s motion for terminating sanctions is DENIED.

Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions is GRANTED in part

The Court ORDERS Defendants Carmen Maria Godinez and Carmen Denim Inc., jointly and severally, to pay monetary sanctions under the Civil Discovery Act to Plaintiff in the amount of $510 within 30 days of notice.

Moving Party is ordered to give notice.