Judge Theresa M. Traber, Case 20STCV40080 2023-04-14 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Theresa M. Traber, Case: 20STCV40080, Date: 2023-04-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV40080 Hearing Date: April 14, 2023 Dept: 47

Tentative Ruling

Judge Theresa M. Traber, Department 47

HEARING DATE: April 14, 2023 TRIAL DATE: May 30, 2023

CASE: Dr. Melina Abdullah, et al. v. Jacquelyn Lacey, et al.

CASE NO.: 20STCV40080

MOTION FOR SANCTIONS

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Estate of David Lacey

RESPONDING PARTY(S): Plaintiffs Melina Abdullah, Dahlia Ferlito, and Justin Marks

CASE HISTORY:

· 10/19/20: Complaint filed.

· 11/05/20: First Amended Complaint filed.

· 02/05/21: Second Amended Complaint filed.

· 04/12/21: Third Amended Complaint filed.

· 01/17/23: Fourth Amended Complaint filed.

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

Plaintiffs allege that they were peacefully protesting outside Defendants’ home when Defendants conspired to compel them to leave by having Defendant David Lacey threaten Plaintiffs with a handgun when they rang Defendants’ doorbell. Plaintiffs also allege that Defendants then made false and misleading statements about the incident when it was under investigation.

Defendants move for issue, evidentiary, and monetary sanctions against Plaintiffs Abdullah, Marks, and Ferlito for failure to comply with the Court’s January 19, 2023 order requiring Plaintiffs to provide verified, code-compliant supplemental discovery responses.

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant’s Motion Sanctions is CONTINUED for 30 days.

DISCUSSION:

Motion for Sanctions

If a party fails to comply with a court order compelling discovery responses or attendance at a deposition, the court may impose monetary, issue, evidence, or terminating sanctions. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (h) [depositions]; § 2030.290, subd. (c) [interrogatories]; § 2031.300, subd. (c) [demands for production of documents].)

Code of Civil Procedure § 2023.030 provides, in relevant part, that, “[t]o the extent authorized by the chapter governing any particular discovery method. . ., the court, after notice to any affected party, person, or attorney, and after opportunity for hearing, may impose . . . [monetary, issue, evidence, or terminating] sanctions against anyone engaging in conduct that is a misuse of the discovery process . . .” Subsection (b) provides that “[t]he 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.” Subsection (c) provides that “[t]he 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.”

“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.)

Courts must consider both the conduct being sanctioned and its effect on the party seeking discovery and, in choosing a sanction, should try to tailor the sanction to the harm caused by the withheld discovery. (Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 967, 992.)

It is a commonly stated axiom that discovery sanctions “should be appropriate to the dereliction and should not exceed that which is required to protect the interests of the party entitled to but denied discovery.” (Deyo v. Kilbourne¿(1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 793, (Deyo) superseded by statute on another ground as stated in Guzman v. General Motors Corp.¿(1984) 154 Cal.App.3d 438, 444.)

Discovery sanctions are not to be imposed for punishment, but instead are used to encourage fair disclosure of discovery to prevent unfairness resulting for the lack of information. (Electronic Funds Solutions, LLC v. Murphy¿(2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 1161, 1183.)

Defendants contend that:

(1) Certain of the Second Supplemental Responses lack Code-compliant verifications asserting (a) whether productions were being made “in whole or in part,” and (b) “that all documents or things in the demanded category that are in the possession, custody, or control of that party and to which no objection is being made will be included in the production.” See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 2031.220;

(2) Plaintiffs purport to reserve the right to supplement the Second Supplemental Responses, despite the fact that the Court’s Order did not allow Plaintiff to reserve the right to further amend or supplement the responses;

(3) None of the Second Supplemental Responses confirm what the Court ordered, namely that Plaintiffs have conducted a reasonable and thorough search of their emails, texts, social media accounts, or electronic devices; and

(4) Plaintiff Ferlito has not supplemented her responses at all.

In opposition, Plaintiffs argue that the issue and evidentiary sanctions are not warranted as the dispute is over semantics. The Court agrees. While Plaintiffs may not have use the specific verbiage required by the code and the Court’s order, there is nothing indicating that Plaintiffs did not provide all responsive documents. However, as some responses are technically not code compliant and did not state that “each Plaintiff did a reasonable and thorough search for texts, emails and social media postings responsive to Defendant's document requests, produce those that are responsive, and state that no other responsive documents exist” as the Court explicitly required in its January 19, 2023 Order, the Court grants monetary sanctions and orders Plaintiffs to comply with the Court’s January 19, 2023 Order as well as providing code-compliant responses which reflects the correct verbiage required by the code.

As to Plaintiff Ferlito, Plaintiffs represent that Ferlito will supplement her responses before the hearing on this motion. Thus, as to Ferlito, the motion is CONTINUED. If Ferlito has not provided responses, then issue and evidentiary sanctions may be warranted.

Defendant requests $5,000 in monetary sanctions against Plaintiffs but does not justify this amount. (Keech Decl., ¶19.) Defendant’s counsel is to provide a declaration justifying the amount of monetary sanctions sought, such as counsel’s hourly rate and time spent on specific tasks, as to each Plaintiff separately. Thus, the motion is also CONTINUED as to Abdullah and Marks.

For these reasons, the Court continues the hearing on this motion for 30 days.

Moving party to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 14, 2023 ___________________________________

Theresa M. Traber

Judge of the Superior Court

Any party may submit on the tentative ruling by contacting the courtroom via email at Smcdept47@lacourt.org by no later than 4:00 p.m. the day before the hearing. All interested parties must be copied on the email. It should be noted that if you submit on a tentative ruling the court will still conduct a hearing if any party appears. By submitting on the tentative you have, in essence, waived your right to be present at the hearing, and you should be aware that the court may not adopt the tentative, and may issue an order which modifies the tentative ruling in whole or in part.