Motion to Compel Production; Motion for Issue Sanctions; Motion for Monetary Sanctions
34-2022-00316048-CU-OR-GDS: E & A Monroy Holdings LLC vs. HSU Family Trust 06/28/2023 Motion to Compel - Other - Civil Law and Motion MTC Production (HSU Family Trust) in Department 54
Tentative Ruling
Plaintiff E&A Monroy Holdings, LLCs (Plaintiff) motion to compel defendant Jieun Hsu, as trustee of the HSU Family Trust (Defendant) to produce documents as ordered by this Court on February 14, 2023, and for issue and/or monetary sanctions is UNOPPOSED and ruled upon as follows.
On February 14, 2023, this Court granted Plaintiffs motion to compel Defendant to produce responsive documents as indicated in Defendants responses to Plaintiffs Request for Production of Document, Set One. The Court also granted Plaintiffs request for monetary sanctions against Defendant in the amount of $760.
Plaintiff contends that Defendant has not produced any documents and has not paid the awarded sanctions and, therefore, has not complied with the Courts Order. Plaintiff seeks an order once again compelling Defendant to produce responsive documents and seeks issue sanctions and/or monetary sanctions against Defendant due to misuse of the discovery process.
Plaintiffs motion to compel Defendant to comply with the Courts February 14, 2023, Order is GRANTED. Defendant is once again ordered to produce responsive documents as indicated in its responses to Plaintiff's Request for Production of Documents, Set One, on or before July 12, 2023.
Plaintiff also requests issue sanctions that defendant Carniceria Mi Mercadito, LLC was not a tenant then in possession as alleged in the Second Amended Cross-Complaint and that Defendant Hsu wrongfully disconnected and rewired the electrical connections powering the monument sign based on Defendants failure to produce the requested documents. Plaintiff argues the documents sought concern the lease and documents pertaining to Defendant digging a trench and rewiring the monument sign and that the foregoing issue sanctions are appropriate due to Defendants failure to produce the requested documents.
For misuse of the discovery process, including as is the case here, disobeying a court order to provide discovery, the Court may impose issue, evidence, terminating, or monetary sanctions. (See, e.g. Code of Civil Procedure §§ 2023.010(d) and (g), 2023.030(a-(d).) The Court has broad discretion in the selection of the appropriate sanction to be applied under the factual circumstances. (Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc. 174 Cal.App.4th 967, 991-992.) The Court may impose sanctions that are suitable and necessary to enable the party seeking discovery to obtain the objects of the discovery he seeks, but the Court may not impose sanctions which are designed not to accomplish the objects of the discovery but to impose punishment. (Caryl Richards, Inc. v.
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
Superior Court (1961) 188 Cal. App. 2d 300, 304.) "The penalty 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.) Sanctions
34-2022-00316048-CU-OR-GDS: E & A Monroy Holdings LLC vs. HSU Family Trust 06/28/2023 Motion to Compel - Other - Civil Law and Motion MTC Production (HSU Family Trust) in Department 54
are generally imposed in an incremental approach, with terminating sanctions being a last resort. (Lopez v. Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York, Inc. (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 566, 604.)
The Court is not persuaded that issue sanctions are warranted at this time. There has been only one discovery order that Defendant has disobeyed thus far. The Court does not find that this type of abuse is sufficient to warrant such severe sanctions at this time, even coupled with Defendants failure to oppose the prior motion and this instant motion. Accordingly, the motion for issue sanctions is DENIED. The Court notes, however, that a continued failure to comply with Court Orders may warrant terminating, issue, or evidentiary sanctions.
Plaintiffs request for monetary sanctions against Defendant and its counsel in the amount of $2,300 is excessive, especially because it includes anticipated time to prepare a reply to this unopposed motion. However, the Court awards monetary sanctions in the amount of $760 (representing two hours of attorney time at the reasonable rate of $350 per hour, plus the $60 filing fee) pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.020 and 2023.030 for failure to meet and confer. The record establishes Plaintiff made multiple good faith attempts to meet and confer with defense counsel on at least four separate occasions prior to the filing of this motion and defense counsel never responded.
The Court must therefore conclude that defense counsel intentionally failed to meet and confer. Sanctions to be paid no later than July 28, 2023, and, if not paid by that date, Plaintiff may prepare for the Court's signature a formal order granting the sanctions, which may then be enforced as a separate judgment. (Newland v. Superior Court (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 608, 615.)
The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1312 or further notice is required.
NOTICE:
Consistent with Local Rule 1.06(B), any party requesting oral argument on any matter on this calendar must comply with the following procedure:
To request limited oral argument, on any matter on this calendar, you must call the Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-2615 by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the hearing and advise opposing counsel. At the time of requesting oral argument, the requesting party shall leave a voice mail message: a) identifying themselves as the party requesting oral argument; b) indicating the specific matter/motion for which they are requesting oral argument; and c) confirming that it has notified the opposing party of its intention to appear and that opposing party may appear via Zoom using the Zoom link and Meeting ID indicated below. If no request for oral argument is made, the tentative ruling becomes the final order of the Court.
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
34-2022-00316048-CU-OR-GDS: E & A Monroy Holdings LLC vs. HSU Family Trust 06/28/2023 Motion to Compel - Other - Civil Law and Motion MTC Production (HSU Family Trust) in Department 54
Unless ordered to appear in person by the Court, parties may appear remotely either telephonically or by video conference via the Zoom video/audio conference platform with notice to the Court and all other parties in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure 367.75. Although remote participation is not required, the Court will presume all parties are appearing remotely for non-evidentiary civil hearings. The Department 53/54 Zoom Link is https://saccourt-cagov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept53.54 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 4650 6749. To appear on Zoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID referenced above. NO COURTCALL APPEARANCES WILL BE ACCEPTED.
Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf. Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp- 13.Pdf
A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Courts Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.
Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will be forward the form to the Court Reporters Office and an official reporter will be provided.