Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 23STCV20355, Date: 2024-12-27 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STCV20355 Hearing Date: December 27, 2024 Dept: 29
Hitabarada v. Los Angeles County Metropolitan
Transportation Authority
23STCV20355
Defendant’s motion for terminating sanctions against Plaintiff Noah Williams
Tentative
The request for terminating sanctions is
denied.
The request for monetary sanctions is granted
in part.
Background
Two consolidated actions arise out of an accident on May
26, 2023, near the intersection of Broadway and Washington Boulevard in Los
Angeles.
In the first filed action, Case No. 23STCV20355,
Francisco Hitabarada (“Hitabarada”) filed a complaint on August 24, 2023,
against Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transit Authority (“Metro”), E.
Cuchilla, and Does 1 through 25 (the “Hitabarada Action”).
Metro filed an answer on October 10, 2023.
In the second filed action, Case No. 23STCV24175, Noah
Williams (“Williams”) filed a complaint on October 4, 2023, against Metro and
Does 1 through 10 (the “Williams Action”).
Metro filed an answer on November 8, 2023.
The two actions were related on December 7, 2023, and
consolidated on April 12, 2024.
On October 15, 2024, the Court granted Metro’s unopposed
motion to compel Plaintiff Williams to appear for deposition. The Court ordered Plaintiff Williams to
appear for deposition on November 7, 2024.
The Court also awarded Metro monetary sanctions.
Plaintiff Williams did not appear for his deposition on
November 7. (Sheppard Decl., ¶ 7 &
Exh. C.) Nor did he pay the
sanctions. (Id., ¶ 7.)
On November 25, 2024, Metro filed this motion for
terminating sanctions against Williams.
Metro also seeks monetary sanctions.
No opposition has been filed.
Legal Standard
When a party fails to obey an order compelling attendance and
testimony at a deposition, “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 [of the Civil Discovery Act.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd.
(h).) “In lieu of, or in addition to,
this sanction, the court may impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 ….” (Ibid.)
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
Plaintiff
Williams has failed to appear for his properly noticed deposition and has
failed to comply with a court order requiring him to appear for
deposition. The failure of Williams to comply
with a court order and his failure to comply with his obligations under the
Civil Discovery Act are serious misuses of the discovery process.
To obtain the ultimate remedy of 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. Metro
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.
Indeed, there is evidence in the record that
counsel for Plaintiff Williams has lost track of his client. (Sheppard Decl., Exh. C, at p. 4.) The failure of Plaintiff Williams to comply
with the Court’s discovery order may, under these circumstances, be the result
of negligence, rather than willful conduct.
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, the Court finds that a terminating sanction would create such a windfall
for Metro.
Accordingly, the request for a terminating
sanction is denied.
In the alternative, Metro requests monetary
sanctions. That request is granted in part.
The Court finds that monetary sanctions are appropriate, as Metro has
incurred expenses as a result of Plaintiff’s misuse of the discovery process. The Court sets sanctions in the amount of $750,
calculated based on three hours of attorney time multiplied by counsel’s reasonable
billing rate of $250 per hour.
Conclusion
The Court DENIES the request of Defendant Los
Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority for a terminating sanction
as against Plaintiff Noah Williams.
The Court GRANTS in part Defendant’s request
for monetary sanctions.
The Court ORDERS Plaintiff Noah Williams to
pay monetary sanctions under the Civil Discovery Act in the amount of $750 to Defendant
Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (through counsel)
within 30 days of notice.
Moving
Party is ordered to give notice.