Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 20STCV12632, Date: 2022-12-22 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 20STCV12632 Hearing Date: December 22, 2022 Dept: 27
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL
DISTRICT
|
Plaintiff(s), vs. CULICHI
TOWN, Defendant(s). |
) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) |
[TENTATIVE]
ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
CONTINUE TRIAL Dept.
27 1:30
p.m. December
22, 2022 |
Terminating
Sanctions
Where
a party fails to obey an order compelling answers to discovery, “the court may
make those orders that are just, including the imposition of an issue sanction,
an evidence sanction, or a terminating sanction.” (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (c),
2023.010, subd. (c); R.S. Creative, Inc. v. Creative Cotton, Ltd. (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 486, 495.) The
Court may impose a terminating sanction against anyone engaging in conduct that
is a misuse of the discovery process.
(Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030, subd. (d).) Misuse of the discovery process includes
failure to respond to an authorized method of discovery or disobeying a court
order to provide discovery. (Code Civ.
Proc., § 2023.010, subds. (d), (g).) A
terminating sanction may be imposed by an order dismissing part or all of the
action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030,
subd. (d)(3).)
Plaintiff does not identify any
discovery order that Defendant has failed to obey or underlying discovery
statutes that authorize monetary sanctions other than Code of Civil Procedure
sections 2023.010 and 2023.030. The
court of appeals recently held that Code of Civil Procedure sections 2023.010
and 2023.030 are not standalone statutes and do not independently authorize a
trial court to impose sanctions for the misuse of discovery. (City of Los Angeles v. PricewaterhouseCoopers,
LLC (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 466.)
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for
terminating sanctions is DENIED.
Continue
Trial
Plaintiff also requests an order
continuing the trial date, currently scheduled for January 12, 2023, and all
related deadlines.
The trial court has discretion to
continue trial dates. (Hernandez v. Superior Court (2004) 115
Cal.App.4th 1242, 1246.) Each request for continuance must be considered on its
own merits and is granted upon an affirmative showing of good cause. (Cal.
Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(c); Hernandez, supra, 115 Cal.App.4th at 1246.)
Circumstances that may indicate good cause include: (1) the unavailability of
an essential lay or expert witness due to death, illness, or other excusable
circumstances; (2) the unavailability of a party due to death, illness, or
other excusable circumstances; (3) the unavailability of trial counsel due to
death, illness, or other excusable circumstances; (4) the substitution of trial
counsel where there is an affirmative showing that the substitution is required
in the interests of justice; (5) the addition of a new party if (A) the new
party has not had a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery and prepare for
trial, or (B) the other parties have not had a reasonable opportunity to
conduct discovery and prepare for trial in regard to the new party’s
involvement in the case; (6) a party’s excused inability to obtain essential
testimony, documents, or other material evidence despite diligent efforts; or
(7) a significant, unanticipated change in the status of the case as a result
of which the case is not ready for trial. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule
3.1332(c).)
The court must also consider such
relevant factors as: (1) the proximity of the trial date; (2) whether there was
any previous continuance, extension of time, or delay of trial caused by any
party; (3) the length of the continuance requested; (4) the availability of
alternative means to address the problem that gave rise to the motion or
application for a continuance; (5) the prejudice that parties or witnesses will
suffer as a result of the continuance; (6) if the case is entitled to a
preferential trial setting, the reasons for that status and whether the need
for a continuance outweighs the need to avoid delay; (7) the court’s calendar
and the impact of granting a continuance on other pending trials; (8) whether
trial counsel is engaged in another trial; (9) whether all parties have
stipulated to a continuance; (10) whether the interests of justice are best
served by a continuance, by the trial of the matter, or by imposing conditions
on the continuance; and (11) any other fact or circumstance relevant to the
fair determination of the motion or application. (Id., rule 3.1332(d).)
On motion of any party, the court may
grant leave to complete discovery proceedings, or to have a motion concerning
discovery heard, closer to the initial trial date, or to reopen discovery after
a new trial date has been set. This
motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration demonstrating a
good faith effort at informal resolution.
(Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.050, subd. (a).) The court shall take into consideration any
matter relevant to the leave requested, including, but not limited to: (1) the
necessity and the reasons for the discovery, (2) the diligence or lack of
diligence of the party seeking the discovery or the hearing of a discovery
motion, and the reasons that the discovery was not completed or that the
discovery motion was not heard earlier, (3) any likelihood that permitting the
discovery or hearing the discovery motion will prevent the case from going to
trial on the date set, or otherwise interfere with the trial calendar, or
result in prejudice to any other party, and (4) the length of time that has
elapsed between any date previously set, and the date presently set, for the
trial of the action.” (Code Civ. Proc.,
§ 2024.050, subd. (b).)
Plaintiff argues that a continuance is
necessary so that her motion to compel the deposition of Defendant’s PMK may be
heard and the deposition can proceed. Plaintiff
claims Defendant has failed to cooperate with the discovery process by refusing
to produce a witness or meet and confer.
Plaintiff has attempted to schedule this deposition of Defendant’s PMK
since November 2021, but defense counsel has refused to provide dates and then unjustifiably
refused to produce a witness when Plaintiff noticed the deposition for November
3, 2022 on the grounds that the deposition date was after the discovery cutoff
date, even though the actual discovery cutoff date was November 7, 2022. On November 15, 2022, Plaintiff filed a
motion to compel the deposition of Defendant’s PMK. The motion is scheduled to be heard on March
14, 2023.
Given Plaintiff’s failed attempts to
obtain discovery, the Court finds that a continuance is necessary so that
Plaintiff may an obtain an order compelling Defendant to produce their
PMK.
Plaintiff’s unopposed motion is
GRANTED. Trial is continued from January
12, 2023 to May 1, 2023 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 27. The final status conference is continued from
December 29, 2022 to April 17, 2023 at 10:00 a.m. in Department 27. All pretrial deadlines including discovery
and motion cut-off dates are to be based on the new trial date. Moving party to give notice.
Parties who intend to submit on this
tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating
intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided
on the court website at www.lacourt.org.
Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to
appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the
hearing and argue the matter. Unless you
receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume
that others might appear at the hearing to argue. If the Court does not receive emails from the
parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no
appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the
tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.