Judge: Teresa A. Beaudet, Case: 22STCV33226, Date: 2025-01-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV33226    Hearing Date: January 21, 2025    Dept: 50

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

Background

Plaintiff Thierry Pillet (“Pillet”) filed this action on October 11, 2022 against Defendant Richard Garnier (“Garnier”). The Complaint alleges causes of action for (1) breach of contract, (2) fraud, (3) breach of fiduciary duty, and (4) unjust enrichment.

On December 12, 2022, Garnier filed a Cross-Complaint against Pillet. The Cross-Complaint alleges causes of action for (1) breach of contract, (2) intentional misrepresentation, (3) intentional interference with prospective advantage, (4) breach of fiduciary duty, and (5) accounting.

Garnier now moves for an order imposing terminating sanctions against Pillet, and in the alternative, for issue sanctions. Garnier also seeks monetary sanctions. The motion is unopposed.

Discussion

Misuses of the discovery process include “[f]ailing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery” and “[d]isobeying a court order to provide discovery.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010, subds. (d), (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, issue, and terminating sanctions. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030.) “The court may impose a terminating sanction by one of the following orders: (1)¿An order striking out the pleadings or parts of the pleadings of any party engaging in the misuse of the discovery process. (2)¿An order staying further proceedings by that party until an order for discovery is obeyed. (3)¿An order dismissing the action, or any part of the action, of that party. (4)¿An order rendering a judgment by default against that party.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030, subd. (d).)

In his supporting declaration, Garnier’s counsel states that “[o]n March 22, 2023, I served the following discovery: (1) Request for Production of Documents and Inspection of Things, To Plaintiff Thierry Pillet, Set One; (2) Special Interrogatories to Plaintiff Thierry Pillet, Set One; (3) Form Interrogatories —General, Set No.: ONE. The deadline for Plaintiff to respond came and went with no response whatsoever. I then made multiple unsuccessful attempts to reach opposing counsel by telephone, leaving multiple voice mail messages.” (Young Decl., ¶ 3.)

Garnier’s counsel states that “on June 6, 2023, I reached Plaintiff’s counsel via telephone. Given Plaintiff’s complete failure to provide any answers before the deadlines to respond, Plaintiff’s counsel conceded that he was required to provide comprehensive, objection-free responses to the propounded discovery and agreed to do so by June 20, 2023. Immediately after this conversation, I sent an email to Plaintiff’s counsel confirming his agreement to send complete, objection-free responses by June 20…June 20 came and went with no further communications of any kind from Plaintiff’s counsel.” (Young Decl., ¶¶ 5-6.)

Garnier’s counsel states that he scheduled an Informal Discovery Conference (“IDC”), and that “minutes before the informal discovery conference, Pillet’s counsel partially responded to the subject discovery.” (Young Decl., ¶¶ 7-8.) Garnier’s counsel asserts that such responses were deficient. (Young Decl., ¶ 8.)

Garnier notes that on February 13, 2024, an IDC was held in this matter. The Court’s February 13, 2024 minute order provides as follows:

“The parties attended the Informal Discovery conference. The parties agreed and the Court ordered as follows:

On or before March 01, 2024, plaintiff will serve defendant with: (1) Supplemental verified responses to Form Interrogatory no. 50.1(e) which will not be based on the assertion that the documents are equally available;

(2) Supplemental verified responses to Request for Production of document no. 2, which pertains to the response to Special Interrogatory no. 5, including without limitation the documents identified in Interrogatory no. 5 such as emails, the business license and the lease;

(3) Supplemental responses to verified Interrogatory no. 6 providing facts that support the contention in the identified part of the complaint; Plaintiff withdraws interrogatory no. 7 as redundant; and

(4) Produce the spreadsheet of the parties contributions to the partnership which was intended to be produced as a document related to the response to Interrogatory no. 16.”

Garnier’s counsel states that “Pillet did not comply with this Order. On March 1, 2024, the Court held a Final Status Conference. During that conference, I reminded Pillet’s counsel that the supplemental discovery responses ordered at the February 13, 2024 IDC were due that day. The Court inquired of Pillet’s counsel whether they would be provided that day, and Pillet’s counsel responded, ‘I believe so.’ But of course, they were not.” (Young Decl., ¶ 10.)

Garnier’s counsel also indicates that “[o]n May 1, 2024, I took the deposition of Plaintiff. During the deposition, a number of blanks were left in the transcript for the Plaintiff to fill in the requested information and/or provide the documents referenced, all of which he agreed to do. The transcript was sent directly to plaintiff electronically on May 15, 2024. By agreement, Plaintiff was given 14 days to review the transcript, make and advise of changes, if any, and provide the information and/or documents he had agreed to provide. On May 23, 2024, I served a Second Request for Production of Documents. Responses were due on June 24, 2024.” (Young Decl., ¶ 12.)

Garnier’s counsel states that “[b]oth deadlines were ignored by Plaintiff. After my multiple phone calls and emails were ignored, I scheduled an Informal Discovery Conference (‘IDC’) for August 2, 2024.” (Young Decl., ¶ 13.) The Court’s August 2, 2024 minute order provides, inter alia, that “[t]he parties attended the Informal Discovery Conference. The parties agreed and the Court ordered as follows: On or before 08/16/2024, plaintiff will notify defendant of the completion of his review of his deposition transcripts and the information and documents that were to be provided as agreed at the deposition. The documents will be provided by the same date. By the same date, plaintiff will serve a verified response to the second request of productions [sic] of documents along with responsive documents.”

Garnier’s counsel states that “Plaintiff has completely ignored this order,” and that “[a]s of the date of this Declaration, no responses or responsive documents in compliance with Court Ordered discovery has been received.” (Young Decl., ¶¶ 15, 19, emphasis omitted.)

Garnier asserts that terminating sanctions are warranted, as Pillet “has completely ignored the Court’s orders from the second and third IDC.” (Mot. at p. 7:4-5.) As noted by Garnier, “¿the sanctioned party’s history as a repeat offender is not only relevant, but also significant, in deciding whether to impose terminating sanctions.¿” (¿Liberty Mutual Fire Ins. Co. v. LcL Administrators, Inc. (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 1093, 1106¿.) “¿A decision to order terminating sanctions should not be made lightly. But where a violation is 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.”¿ (¿Mileikowsky v. Tenet Healthsystem (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 262, 279-280¿.) 

As discussed, the Court issued a minute order on February 13, 2024 ordering Pillet to serve certain supplemental responses and documents. (See February 13, 2024 minute order.) Garnier’s counsel indicates that Pillet did not comply with this order. (Young Decl., ¶ 10.) In addition, as discussed, the Court issued a minute order on August 2, 2024 ordering Pillet to “serve a verified response to the second request of [sic] productions of documents” and to serve certain documents. (See August 2, 2024 minute order.) Garnier’s counsel indicates that Pillet also did not comply with this order. (Young Decl., ¶¶ 15, 19.)

Pillet did not file any opposition to the instant motion. Accordingly, Pillet does not

address or oppose Garnier’s request for terminating sanctions. Pillet does not provide any evidence demonstrating that he complied with the Court’s February 13, 2024 and August 2, 2024 orders.

In instances where “¿the record is replete with instances of delay and failure to comply with a court order, dismissal may be proper.¿” (¿Laguna Auto Body v. Farmers Ins. Exchange (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 481, 489 [disapproved on other grounds]¿.) This is particularly true where, as here, Pillet does not oppose the instant motion for terminating sanctions. (See Ibid. [“[A]ppellants had ample opportunity to present their arguments and excuses to the trial court. Instead, they failed to file opposition to the motion to compel or the dismissal motion, leading the trial court and us to presume they had no meritorious arguments.”].) The Court finds that Pillet’s discovery abuse demonstrates that less severe sanctions will not produce compliance with the discovery rules. Accordingly, the Court finds that terminating sanctions are appropriate. 

Garnier moves for an order imposing terminating sanctions “pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 2023.030(d)(1) & (4).” (Notice of Motion at p. 2:7.) As set forth above, Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030, subdivision (d)(1) provides that “[t]he court may impose a terminating sanction by one of the following orders: (1) An order striking out the pleadings or parts of the pleadings of any party engaging in the misuse of the discovery process.” (Emphasis added.) Accordingly, the Court will issue an order striking Pillet’s Complaint in this action.  

In light of the foregoing, the Court denies Garnier’s alternative request for issue sanctions as moot.

The Court also notes that in the motion, Garnier asserts that “[f]ailure to impose terminating or issue sanctions will be tantamount to rewarding Pillet’s egregious misconduct. But if the Court is unwilling to do either of these things, it should at least order further responses to the Court’s order of August 2, 2024 and impose sanctions in the amount of not less than $15,000.” (Mot. at p. 10:9-12.) As an initial mater, it is unclear what Garnier means when he seeks an order compelling “further responses to the Court’s order.” (Mot. at p. 10:11.) Garnier does not appear to identify any specific discovery requests he seeks further responses to. Moreover, Garnier’s notice of motion does not indicate that Garnier seeks an order compelling further responses to any discovery requests. The Court notes that pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1110, subdivision (a), “[a] notice of motion must state in the opening paragraph the nature of the order being sought and the grounds for issuance of the order.” Thus, the Court denies Garnier’s request for “further responses.”

Lastly, Garnier’s notice of motion indicates that “Garnier requests additional monetary sanctions in the amount of not less than $15,000 pursuant to § 2023.030(a).” (Mot. at p. 2:17-18.) As an threshold matter, the Court notes that pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.040, “[a] request for a sanction shall, in the notice of motion, identify every person, party, and attorney against whom the sanction is sought, and specify the type of sanction sought. The notice of motion shall be supported by a memorandum of points and authorities, and accompanied by a declaration setting forth facts supporting the amount of any monetary sanction sought.” Here, Garnier’s notice of motion does not identify any “person, party, [or] attorney against whom the [monetary] sanction is sought.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.040.) The Court also notes that “[a]dequate notice prior to imposition of sanctions is mandated not only by statute, but also by the due process clauses of both the state and federal Constitutions.” (O’Brien v. Cseh (1983) 148 Cal.App.3d 957, 961 [superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in Lim v. Silverton (1997) 61 Cal.App.4th Supp. 1, 2-3].)¿

In light of the foregoing, the Court denies Garnier’s request for monetary sanctions.

///

///

///

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, Garnier’s motion is granted in part. Garnier’s motion for terminating sanctions is granted. The Court orders that Pillet’s Complaint is stricken.[1] Garnier’s motion is otherwise denied.

Garnier is ordered to provide notice of this Order.¿

DATED:  January 21, 2025                            ________________________________

Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court