Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 21STCV42107, Date: 2023-06-20 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV42107 Hearing Date: December 18, 2023 Dept: 29
Tentative
Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.
Defendants’ request for sanctions is DENIED.
Background
On November 16, 2021, Plaintiff J
Bartell (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants Judith DeBartolo,
Rachel Salinas, State Farm General Ins. Co., and Does 1 to 100, asserting causes
of action for negligence, premises liability, and intentional tort. Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint on
December 7, 2021. Plaintiff alleges
(among other things) that a windstorm damaged the front porch awning of
Defendants’ house on January 19, 2021; that Defendants failed to secure the
debris; and that later in the day Plaintiff was injured when Defendants’
carport came “undone from its attachment … and … fell onto Plaintiff, striking
and injuring him.”
On January 25, 2022, the Court, at
the request of Plaintiff, dismissed all claims against State Farm General Ins.
Co. with prejudice.
On May 3, 2022, Defendants Judith
DeBartolo and Rachel Salinas (“Defendants”) filed an answer to the First
Amended Complaint.
On October 24, 2023, Plaintiff filed this
motion for monetary and issue sanctions against Defendants and their attorney.
Defendants filed their opposition, and their own requests for monetary
sanctions, on November 30, 2023. Plaintiff filed his reply on December 4, 2023.
The matter was initially set for hearing on
December 13. The Court, on its own
motion, continued the hearing to December 18.
Trial was previously scheduled for November
30, 2023. On that date, the trial was
continued to January 18, 2024, and the Court ordered that discovery “remains
closed.”
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
Plaintiff seeks monetary and issue sanctions
against Defendants and their counsel under Code of Civil Procedure sections
2023.010, 2023.020, and 2023.030. (Motion,
p. 2.) In his motion, Plaintiff asserts
that Defendants served a response to Plaintiff’s request for production of
documents that was late, “filled with meritless objections,” and provided no
documents. (Motion, at pp. 3, 7.) Plaintiff also asserts that Defendants repeatedly
failed to meet their obligation to meet and confer regarding the responses and
other discovery matters (id. at pp. 3-4, 6, 10-11.); misused the
deposition process (id. at p. 6); cancelled the depositions of one Defendant
and one witness in an “unduly late” manner (ibid.); set a deposition of one
of Plaintiff’s witnesses unilaterally (ibid.); and publicly disclosed
private facts in court filings that should have been redacted but were not (id.
at pp. 7-9).
On the final page of Plaintiff’s motion, in
the conclusion, Plaintiff asks for an order compelling Defendants to comply
with Plaintiff’s discovery requests.
Plaintiff seeks sanctions under the Civil
Discovery Act for what Plaintiff describes as “the totality of Defendants’ and
their counsels’ behavior and actions throughout the discovery period.” (Reply, at p. 1.) The Court understands that Plaintiff (who is
not an attorney) is representing himself and faces the difficulty of navigating
the civil justice system without the guidance of a trained professional. Nonetheless, there are procedural rules that apply
to all litigants, including those who have professional counsel and those who
represent themselves.
One procedural rule is that all motions
regarding discovery must be heard at least 15 days before the initial trial
date. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.020,
subd. (a).) The initial trial date in
this matter was May 16, 2023. When the
trial was continued to November 30, the Court reset the discovery deadlines
based on the new trial date. That means
that any motion regarding discovery needed to be heard by no later than
November 15, 2023. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s
motion is untimely, and the Court must deny it on that basis.
Another procedural rule is that motions
seeking discovery sanctions must specify the type of sanction sought, and when
a party seeks monetary sanctions the party must provide a declaration that
supports the amount of sanctions requested.
(Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.040.)
Here, Plaintiff states generally that he is seeking monetary and issue
sanctions. But nowhere in the motion (or
the supporting papers) does Plaintiff state the amount of monetary sanctions
requested. Similarly, the motion does
not provide any information about the issue sanction requested, and it is only
on the final page of the supporting memorandum that Plaintiff states (still in
vague terms) that he is seeking an order that establishes as true that “Plaintiff
has suffered the extent of the injuries he claims.” Plaintiff’s papers do not provide adequate
notice as to the sanctions he is requesting, and so the Court must deny the
motion on that independent basis as well.
Defendants’ request for monetary sanctions is
denied. Although the motion is not
successful, the Court finds that Plaintiff has acted with substantial
justification.
Finally, this ruling is not on the merits and
does not have any impact on the right of any party to seeking an order (by way
of motion in limine or otherwise) to exclude any evidence at trial on any
applicable legal basis.
Conclusion
The Court DENIES
Defendants’ request for sanctions in their opposition.
Moving party is
ordered to give notice.