Judge: Teresa A. Beaudet, Case: 19STCV37928, Date: 2022-08-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV37928    Hearing Date: August 9, 2022    Dept: 50

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

            Background

Plaintiff Rozina Khan (“Plaintiff”) filed this action on October 22, 2019 against Defendants Balbir Singh (“Singh”) and all persons unknown, claiming any legal or equitable right, title, estate, lien or interest in the property described in the Complaint adverse to Plaintiff’s title, or any cloud upon Plaintiff’s title thereto. The Complaint asserts causes of action for (1) constructive trust, (2) accounting, (3) conversion, and (4) quiet title. 

On November 12, 2021, the Court issued a minute order indicating that “[t]he parties agree and the Court orders plaintiff to respond to the defendant’s demand for production of documents, set one, and to produce any responsive documents on or before January 12, 2022.”

Thereafter, Plaintiff served unverified responses to the demand for production of documents on January 21, 2022. (Middleton Decl., ¶ 6.)

On March 14, 2022, Singh filed a previous motion for sanctions. On May 9, 2022, the Court issued an Order on this motion, which provides, inter alia, that “Singh’s motion for sanctions is granted in part and denied in part. The Court denies Singh’s request for terminating and evidentiary sanctions, and grants Singh’s request for monetary sanctions in part. Plaintiff is ordered to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $3,150.00 to Singh within 30 days of the date of this Order. Plaintiff is further ordered to provide verified supplemental responses to the demand for production of documents, set one, within 30 days of the date of this Order.” 

Singh indicates that on May 28, 2022, Plaintiff served further responses to Singh’s

demand for production of documents, set one. (Middleton Decl., ¶ 7.) Singh states that Plaintiff provided her January 21, 2022 responses and “‘slapped’ on Plaintiff’s verification and emailed it to Defendant as a means to comply with the May 9, 2022 Court order.” (Middleton Decl., ¶ 6.) Singh also asserts that Plaintiff failed to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $3,150.00, as required by the May 9, 2022 Order. (Middleton Decl., ¶ 3, Ex. D.)   

Singh now moves for an order of terminating sanctions against Plaintiff, or in the alternative, for an order imposing “discovery” or evidentiary sanctions against Plaintiff. Singh also seeks monetary sanctions against Plaintiff. No timely opposition to the motion was filed.

Request for Judicial Notice

The Court grants Singh’s request for judicial notice. The Court notes that it takes judicial notice only of the fact of the filing of the documents attached as Exhibits “A” and “B” to the request for judicial notice.

Discussion

Misuses of the discovery process include failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery, making an evasive response to discovery, or disobeying a court order to provide discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010(g).) There are a broad range of sanctions available against anyone engaging in conduct that is a misuse of the discovery process, including the issuance of monetary, evidentiary, contempt and terminating sanctions. (Code Civ. Proc.,      § 2023.030.)

A monetary sanction may be imposed against one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030(a).) An evidentiary sanction may be imposed by way of an order prohibiting any party engaging in the misuse of the discovery process from introducing designated matters in evidence. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030(c).) A terminating sanction may be imposed by an order striking the pleadings, dismissing the action, or rendering a judgment by default.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030(d).) 

In the instant motion, Singh seeks terminating sanctions, or in the alternative, “evidentiary  sanctions  by  precluding  Plaintiff  from  producing  any documents  or  discussing  any  matters  pertinent  to  the  documents  she  identified  within  the  Special  Interrogatories  and  those  ‘Other  Documents’  listed  above  that  also  have  been demanded from Plaintiff which she has failed to provide and has thus far failed to produce.” (Mot. at p. 13:6-11.)

As argued in his previous March 14, 2022 motion for sanctions, Singh again asserts that Plaintiff’s supplemental response to Special Interrogatory No. 1 identifies certain documents, and that such documents have not been produced.[1] The Court notes that it already ruled in its May 9, 2022 Order that “in the January 21, 2022 supplemental responses served by Plaintiff, many of the responses indicate that certain specified documents are attached, and such documents appear to be included in Exhibit “N” to Singh’s Declaration…Singh also acknowledges in the reply that Plaintiff produced documents on January 21, 2022…Thus, the Court does not find terminating or evidentiary sanctions to be warranted.” (May 9, 2022 Order at p. 3:13-19.)

Although it is not entirely clear what the “Other Documents” are that Singh is referring to, the instant motion at page 8:3-9:12 lists documents Singh demanded that he asserts Plaintiff failed to provide. In support of this assertion, Singh cites to certain demands. (Mot. at p. 8:3-9:12.) The Court notes that Singh’s counsel’s declaration in support of the motion attaches further responses from Plaintiff dated January 21, 2022, as well as what appears to be a number of documents produced by Singh. (Middleton Decl., ¶ 3, Ex. C.) Thus, the Court is unable to determine from the motion that Singh violated the November 12, 2021 Order by failing to produce responsive documents, despite Singh’s conclusion that Plaintiff “ignored” the November 12, 2021 Order. (Middleton Decl., ¶ 6.)

Singh also asserts that Plaintiff has not complied with the Court’s Order of May 9, 2022.  A set forth above, the May 9, 2022 Order provides in part that, “Plaintiff is further ordered to provide verified supplemental responses to the demand for production of documents, set one, within 30 days of the date of this Order.” It is unclear why Singh contends Plaintiff failed to comply with this requirement, as Singh indicates that Plaintiff served verified responses on May 28, 2022. (Middleton Decl., ¶¶ 6, 7.) 

Based on the foregoing, the Court does not find that Singh has demonstrated good cause for terminating or evidentiary sanctions. 

Singh also requests monetary sanctions in connection with the instant motion. Singh’s counsel’s supporting declaration attaches a June 28, 2022 letter to Plaintiff’s counsel indicating that “this office has not received the $3,150.00 in sanctions that Plaintiff was court order [sic] to pay Defendant.” (Middleton Decl., ¶ 3, Ex. D.) As set forth above, Plaintiff was ordered pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $3,150.00 to Singh within 30 days of the May 9, 2022 Order. The Court does not award sanctions for failing to pay previously awarded sanctions.  Plaintiff has other remedies for collecting sanctions awarded.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, Singh’s motion for sanctions is denied. Singh is ordered to give notice of this Order.

DATED:  August 9, 2022                               ________________________________

Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court