Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: BC695119, Date: 2023-04-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC695119    Hearing Date: April 17, 2023    Dept: 3

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - NORTHEAST DISTRICT

This is a habitability action brought by plaintiff Yuka Tamura (“Plaintiff”) against defendants Estelle Brees Campbell, Studios at Walnut, LLC, and De Miranda Management (collectively, “Defendants”).  On March 21, 2023, Defendants filed this motion for “evidentiary sanctions” relating to Plaintiff’s lost earnings.  No opposition brief is on file with the Court, but Defendants filed a reply brief on April 10, 2023, which referred to an opposition brief that was at least served.  Based on the papers that have been filed, the Court DENIES the motion for sanctions. 

As an initial matter, the Court notes that Defendants conflate issue sanctions with evidence sanctions by asking the Court to preclude Plaintiff’s wage loss claims.  An evidence sanction prohibits a party “from introducing designated matters in evidence.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030, subd. (c).)    An issue sanction is an order that designated facts are deemed established in favor of the party adversely affected by the misuse of the discovery process, or an order prohibiting the sanctioned party from supporting or opposing designated claims or defenses.  (Id., subd. (b).)  The separate statement does not identify any evidentiary matter, i.e., documents, that Defendants wish to exclude.  Therefore, to the extent that this motion seeks evidence sanctions, the motion is DENIED. 

To the extent Defendants seek an issue sanction precluding Plaintiff from asserting a wage loss claim, the motion is also DENIED.  In response to the informal discovery conference (“IDC”) held on September 20, 2022, Plaintiff’s counsel produced a privilege log identifying financial information, including tax returns, which Defendants claim they are entitled to.  (Motion, Declaration of Shanna M. Van Wagner, ¶¶ 15-16.)  Defense counsel declares that after the most recent IDC on January 18, 2023, Plaintiff’s counsel agreed to produce some of the financial documents that were identified in this privilege log, but continued to withhold others on the grounds that they were irrelevant to the lost earnings claims.  (Van Wagner Decl., Ex. 1.)   Imposing an issue sanction in light of this additional production would be granting Defendants a windfall, especially when Defendants provide no reasoning as to why the withheld documents (which Defendants never specifiy in their moving papers, and only belatedly identify in their reply brief as tax returns and credit card statements) effectively prevent Defendants from defending against Plaintiff’s wage loss claim. 

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at ALHDEPT3@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.

Dated this 17th day of April, 2023