Judge Theresa M. Traber, Case 21STCV42496 2023-01-18 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Theresa M. Traber, Case: 21STCV42496, Date: 2023-01-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV42496 Hearing Date: January 18, 2023 Dept: 47

Tentative Ruling

Judge Theresa M. Traber, Department 47

HEARING DATE: January 18, 2023 TRIAL DATE: April 4, 2023

CASE: Creditor’s Adjustment Bureau, Inc. v. Chang Rae Jo

CASE NO.: 21STCV42496

MOTION FOR TERMINATING AND MONETARY SANCTIONS

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Creditor’s Adjustment Bureau, Inc.

RESPONDING PARTY(S): No response on eCourt as of January 12, 2022

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

This is an action for breach of contract filed on November 17, 2021. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant has failed to pay insurance premiums in association with a set of worker’s compensation insurance policies.

Plaintiff moves for terminating sanctions for failure to comply with the Court’s previous order on Plaintiff’s Motions to Compel Responses, and for monetary sanctions.

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions is DENIED.

Defendant is ordered to serve verified, code-compliant responses to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories and Requests for Production, without objections, within 30 days of the date of this order.

Defendant is also ordered to pay the sanctions in the amount of $1,347.84, awarded in connection with the previous motion, within 30 days of the date of this order.

Plaintiff’s request for further sanctions is GRANTED in the amount of $811.65. Payment is to be made within 30 days of the date of this order. //

DISCUSSION:

Plaintiff moves for terminating sanctions for failure to comply with the Court’s previous order on Plaintiff’s Motions to Compel Responses, and for monetary sanctions.

Terminating Sanctions

Plaintiff requests terminating sanctions for Defendants’ failure to provide verified discovery responses without objections in the form of striking the Defendants’ answer.

The Court has the authority to impose sanctions against a party that engages in any misuse of the discovery process (Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.030), including “[f]ailing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery.” (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2023.010(d).) A party engaging in this conduct may be subject to sanctions including monetary sanctions (Code Civ Proc. § 2023.030(a)), evidence sanctions (Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.030(c)) or terminating sanctions. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.030(d).) “[T]rial courts should select sanctions tailored to the harm caused by the misuse of the discovery process and should not exceed what is required to protect the party harmed by the misuse of the discovery process.” (Dept. of Forestry & Fire Protection v. Howell (2017) 18 Cal.App.5th 154, 191, disapproved of on other grounds in Presbyterian Camp & Conference Centers, Inc. v. Superior Court (2021) 12 Cal.5th 493.) Sanctions are generally imposed in an incremental approach. (Id.) Generally, the appropriate sanctions when a party repeatedly and willfully fails to provide evidence to the opposing party as required by the discovery rules is preclusion of that evidence from the trial. (Juarez v. Boy Scouts of America, Inc. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 377, 390, disapproved of on other grounds by Brown v. USA Taekwondo (2021) 11 Cal.5th 204.)

In considering a motion for terminating sanctions, the Court is to attempt to “tailor the sanction to the harm caused by the withheld discovery.” (Collisson & Kaplan v. Hartunian (1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 1611, 1618-1619.)

[T]he question before this court is not whether the trial court should have imposed a lesser sanction; rather, the question is whether the trial court abused its discretion by imposing the sanction it chose. [Citation.] Moreover, imposition of a lesser sanction would have permitted [defendants] to benefit from their stalling tactics. [Citation.] The trial court did not abuse its discretion by tailoring the sanction to the particular abuse.

(Id. at 1620.)

Moreover, in deciding whether to impose a terminating sanction, the trial court is to consider the totality of the circumstances: the “conduct of the party to determine if the actions were willful; the detriment to the propounding party; and the number of formal and informal attempts to obtain the discovery.” (Lang v. Hochman (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 1225, 1246.)

Plaintiff served its Requests for Production and Special Interrogatories by mail on February 28, 2022. (Declaration of Kenneth J. Freed ISO Motions to Compel Responses. ¶ 3, Exh. 1.) No responses were received. Plaintiff moved to compel responses, and, on September 21, 2022, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motions and ordered Defendant to pay sanctions in the amount of $1,347.84 within 20 days of the date of that order. (Declaration of Joseph Jyoo ISO Mot. ¶ 3 Exh. 1.) Defendant, to date, has not done so. (Id.)

In the Court’s view, a single instance of failure to comply with court orders is not generally sufficient justification for the ultimate sanction. Plaintiff makes no showing of prejudice, and it is not apparent from the facts at hand that Defendant’s failure to comply with court orders is willful. In the Court’s view, Plaintiff’s motion is premature. However, the Court will issue a second order requiring Defendant to produce code-compliant discovery responses without objections to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production and Special Interrogatories, and to pay the $1,347.84 in sanctions previously awarded, within 30 days of the date of this order.

Monetary Sanctions

Plaintiff also requests additional monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,561.65 for attorney’s fees and expenses in bringing this motion.

The Court may impose monetary sanctions under section 2023.010 when a party fails to comply with a court’s discovery order. (Code Civ Proc. §§ 2030.290(c).) Monetary sanctions are authorized under section 2023.010 for misuses of the discovery process, including failing to submit to an authorized method of discovery and failure to respond to a court order.

Here, Plaintiff requests monetary sanctions against Defendants in the amount of $1,561.65, based on three hours at a rate of $500 per hour, including time spent preparing this motion and anticipated time for the hearing on this motion, plus a $61.65 filing fee. (Jyoo Decl. ¶ $.) It is undisputed that Defendants have failed to comply with the Court’s previous orders to provide verified discovery responses without objections. However, as no opposition has been filed, an award for anticipated hours is not justified. The Court therefore reduces the amount of monetary sanctions to $811.65, accounting for 1.5 hours of attorney time plus the filing fee.

CONCLUSION:

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions is DENIED.

Defendant is ordered to serve verified, code-compliant responses to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories and Requests for Production, without objections, within 30 days of the date of this order.

Defendant is also ordered to pay the sanctions in the amount of $1,347.84, awarded in connection with the previous motion, within 30 days of the date of this order.

Plaintiff’s request for further sanctions is GRANTED in the amount of $811.65. Payment is to be made within 30 days of the date of this order.

Moving Party to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 18, 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.