Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 23STCV08299, Date: 2024-08-01 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STCV08299 Hearing Date: August 1, 2024 Dept: 29
Motion for Sanctions filed by Defendant Shawn Shepherd.
Tentative
Defendant’s motion for terminating sanctions against
Plaintiff Barrios is DENIED.
Defendant’s motion for issue and evidence
sanctions against Plaintiff Sanchez is DENIED without prejudice.
Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions is
GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
Background
On April
14, 2023, Adela Sanchez and Andrez Barrios (collectively “Plaintiffs”) filed a
complaint against Shawn Shepherd (“Defendant”) and Does 1 through 100 for motor
vehicle negligence arising out of an automobile accident occurring on August 5,
2021.
Defendant
filed an answer to the complaint on June 26, 2023.
On April
22, 2024, the Court granted Defendant’s motions to compel each Plaintiff to
respond to Form Interrogatories (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One),
and Requests for Production (Set One).
The Court also ordered Plaintiffs and their counsel to pay monetary
sanctions.
Neither
Plaintiff complied with the Court’s orders.
(Figueras Decl., ¶ 8.) Plaintiff
Sanchez did provide “some” untimely responses, but these include objections,
which were waived and are in violation of the Court’s orders. (Id., ¶¶ 9-10.) Plaintiff Barrios has not provided any
response. (Id., ¶ 9.)
On June 27, 2024,
Defendant filed this motion for terminating, issue, evidence, and/or monetary
sanctions.
No opposition has
been filed.
Legal Standard
When a plaintiff fails to obey an order compelling answers 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 (commencing with Section
2023.010). In lieu of or in addition to,
that sanction, the court may impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (c).)
When a plaintiff fails to obey an order compelling responses to
requests 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 (commencing
with Section 2023.010). In lieu of or in
addition to, that sanction, the court may impose a monetary sanction under
Chapter 7.” (Code Civ. Proc., §
2031.300, subd. (c).)
In Chapter 7 of the Civil Discovery Act, section 2023.030 provides
for monetary, evidence, issue, and terminating sanctions for any “misuse of the
discovery process,” “[t]o the extent authorized by the chapter governing any
particular discovery method or any other provision of this title.” A “misuse of
the discovery process” is defined to include (among other things) failing to
respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery; making, without
substantial justification, an unmeritorious objection to discovery; making an
evasive response to a discovery request; disobeying a court order to provide
discovery; and making or opposing, unsuccessfully, a motion to compel without
substantial justification. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010, subds. (d)-(h).)
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
Defendant
seeks terminating, issue, evidence, and monetary sanctions arising out of the failure
of each Plaintiff to comply with the Court’s orders and to meet their
obligations under the Civil Discovery Act.
Termination Sanctions (Sought Against Plaintiff Barrios
Only)
For terminating sanctions, 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. Defendant 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 Defendant.
Accordingly, the request for a terminating sanction against Plaintiff
Barrios is denied.
Issue and Evidence Sanctions (Sought
Against Plaintiff Sanchez Only)
Defendant requests issue and/or evidence sanctions
against Plaintiff Sanchez but does not, in his moving papers, provide an
adequate basis for this request.
Defendant’s counsel states that Plaintiff Sanchez has provided responses
to “some” discovery requests, but Defendant does not explain what this
means. Did Plaintiff respond to 10
percent of the requests? 50
percent? 95 percent? And what is the substance of the requests as
to which Plaintiff Sanchez failed to respond?
Without this information, the Court cannot determine whether to award
any non-monetary sanction against Plaintiff Sanchez and, if so, what issue or
evidence sanction is appropriate and proportional.
The request for nonmonetary sanctions against
Plaintiff Sanchez is denied without prejudice.
Monetary Sanctions (Sought Against
Both Plaintiffs and Counsel)
The Court finds monetary sanctions warranted
here due to Plaintiffs’ failure to comply with the Court’s order and provide
written discovery responses. The Court
understands that at an earlier stage of the proceedings, Plaintiff’s counsel
asked not to be sanctioned because the clients had failed to respond to (or
otherwise communicate with counsel), but Plaintiffs have not opposed this
motion, and the Court has no information regarding whether the lack of response
or communication has continued. The
Court imposes sanctions against Plaintiffs and counsel and sets the amount of
sanctions at $825, calculated based on three hours of attorney time at the reasonable
hourly rate of $255 plus the $60 filing fee. (See Figueras Decl., ¶ 15.)
Conclusion
Defendant’s motion for terminating sanctions against
Plaintiff Barrios is DENIED.
Defendant’s motion for issue and evidence
sanctions against Plaintiff Sanchez is DENIED without prejudice.
Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions is
GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
The Court
ORDERS Plaintiffs Adela Sanchez and Andrez Barrios, and their counsel of
record, the Halpern Law Firm, jointly and severally, to pay $825 in sanctions
to Defendant Shawn Shephard within 30 days of notice of this order.
Moving
Party is ordered to give notice.