Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 21STCV24720, Date: 2023-08-09 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV24720 Hearing Date: January 8, 2024 Dept: 29
Motion for Issue and/or Evidentiary Sanctions filed by Defendant
Dial Transport, Inc. and Doan Haidang Huynh.
The motion is DENIED.
Background
On July 6, 2021, Plaintiffs
Estanislao Hernandez, Carmen Hernandez, Israel Alberto Hernandez Saavedra,
individually and as successors in interest to Decedent, Mario Alberto
Hernandez, filed a complaint against Defendants Doan Haidang Huynh, Dial
Transport Inc, and Vantage Industrial Holding, LLC, alleging four causes of
action for: (1) wrongful death; (2) negligence; (3) negligent entrustment; and
(4) premises liability/wrongful death.
On October 20, 2021, Defendant Dial
propounded form interrogatories, special interrogatories. and requests for
production on Plaintiff Israel Alberto Hernandez Saavedra (“Plaintiff”);
Defendant received no response. On March 20, 2023, the Court granted Defendant’s
motion to compel the aforementioned written discovery and ordered sanctions from
Plaintiff and his counsel in the amount of $610.00. Plaintiff still did not
respond.
On May 16, 2023, Defendant filed a motion for
an order holding Plaintiff in Contempt. Plaintiff filed an opposition one day
before the hearing. The Court continued the hearing until July 17, 2023, and
then continued again to August 9, 2023.
On July 14, 2023, Defendant filed six more
discovery motions, three for August 9, 2023, and three for August 10, 2023. On
August 9, 2023, the Court ordered sanctions from Plaintiff and his counsel in
the amount of $1,875.00. On August 10, 2023, the Court ordered sanctions from
Plaintiff and his counsel in the amount of $690.00.
Defendants Dial Transport, Inc. and Doan
Haidang Huynh filed this motion for issue and/or evidentiary sanctions on
October 18, 2023. Plaintiff filed his opposition on December 7, 2023.
Defendants filed their reply on December 11, 2023.
Legal Standard
“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: ... (b) The court may impose an issue sanction ordering that
designated facts shall be taken as established in the action in accordance with
the claim of the party adversely affected by the misuse of the discovery
process. The court may also impose an issue sanction by an order prohibiting
any party engaging in the misuse of the discovery process from supporting or
opposing designated claims or defenses. (c) The court may impose an evidence
sanction by an order prohibiting any party engaging in the misuse of the
discovery process from introducing designated matters in evidence." (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.)
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.)
Discussion
Defendants’ motion for issue or evidence
sanctions is DENIED. The purpose of
discovery sanctions is to obtain compliance with the Civil Discovery Act, not
to create a windfall for a party. If the
monetary sanction order remains unpaid, Defendants may enforce the order in the
same manner as a money judgment, through execution. (See Newland v. Superior
Court (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 608, 615.)
Plaintiffs’ request for sanctions is DENIED. Although Defendants’ motion is not successful,
Defendants have acted with substantial justification and have not engaged in
any sanctionable conduct.
Conclusion
The Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ request for
monetary sanctions.
Counsel for
Defendants is ordered to give notice.