Angela Ramirez vs. Pacific Gas & Electric Company

34-2019-00255681-CU-OE-GDS: Angela Ramirez vs. Pacific Gas & Electric Company 06/27/2024 Hearing on Motion for Sanctions in Department 53

will forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

TENTATIVE RULING: Defendant Pacific Gas and Electric’s unopposed second motion for terminating sanctions, or in the alternative, evidence or issue sanctions, and monetary sanctions is ruled upon as set forth below.

On October 10, 2023, this Court granted Defendant's five unopposed motions to compel Plaintiff Angela Ramirez’s further responses to five separate sets of written discovery. Plaintiff was ordered to serve further responses to the subject discovery no later than October 24, 2023. The Court also sanctioned Plaintiff’s counsel a total of $4,500 ($900 for each motion), for failing to meet and confer pursuant to CCP § 2023.020.

After Plaintiff failed to serve the Court ordered discovery responses, Defendant filed its first motion for terminating sanctions, or in the alternative, evidence or issue sanctions, and monetary sanctions. Plaintiff did not oppose that motion. On February 8, 2024, this Court granted the motion to the extent that it granted Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions in the amount of $2,375. The Court found that more severe sanctions were not yet appropriate. The Court again ordered Plaintiff to comply with the October 10, 2023, orders and to serve the Court ordered discovery responses no later than February 29, 2024. The Court also stated that “[s]hould plaintiff fail to do so, nothing shall prevent Defendant from filing a future motion for sanctions.” (2/8/24 Minute Order)

Plaintiff did not serve the Court ordered responses by the February 29, 2024, deadline, and had not done so as of May 28, 2024. (Stonhaus Decl. ¶ 13.)

Defendant again moves for terminating sanctions, or in the alternative, evidence or issue sanctions, and monetary sanctions on the basis that Plaintiff yet again failed to serve responses to the five sets of written discovery despite having been ordered by the Court to do so on two separate occasions. As with the underlying discovery motions and the first motion for terminating sanctions, the motion is unopposed.

For misuse of the discovery process, including as is the case here, disobeying a court order to provide discovery, the Court may impose issue sanctions 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” or “prohibiting any party engaging in the misuse of the discovery process from supporting or opposing designated claims or defenses.” (CCP § 2023.030(b).) The Court may also impose evidentiary sanctions by “an order prohibiting any party engaging in the misuse of the discovery process from introducing designated matters into evidence.” (Id. § 2023.030(c). Finally, the Court may impose a terminating sanction by one of the

34-2019-00255681-CU-OE-GDS: Angela Ramirez vs. Pacific Gas & Electric Company 06/27/2024 Hearing on Motion for Sanctions in Department 53

following: an order striking out the pleadings or parts of the pleadings of any party engaging in the misuse of the discovery process or an order dismissing the action, or any part of the action, of that party. (Id. § 2023.030(d)(1) and (3).) The Court has broad discretion in selecting the appropriate sanctions under the factual circumstances before it. (Cedars-Sinai Medical Center v. Superior Court (1998) 18 Cal.4th 1, 12.)

“The sanctions the court may impose are such as 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. 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) The discovery sanction “should not operate in such a fashion as to put the prevailing party in a better position than he would have had if he had obtained the discovery sought and it had been completely favorable to his cause.” (Id.)

“The discovery statutes evince an incremental approach to discovery sanctions, starting with monetary sanctions and ending with the ultimate sanction of termination.” (Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc. (2009) 174 Cal. App. 4th 967, 992.) “If a lesser sanction fails to curb misuse, a greater sanction is warranted: continuing misuses of the discovery process warrant incrementally harsher sanctions until the sanction is reached that will curb the abuse.” (Id.) “A decision to order terminating sanctions should not be made lightly. But where a violation is willful, preceded by a history of abuse, and the evidence shows that less severe sanctions would not produce compliance with the discovery rules, the trial court is justified in imposing the ultimate sanction.” (Mileikowsky v. Tenet Healthsystem (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 262, 279-280.)

It is undisputed that Plaintiff has failed to comply with multiple Court orders with respect to the subject discovery. Specifically, Plaintiff failed to comply with the October 10, 2023, orders requiring service of further responses and Plaintiff has also failed to comply with the February 8, 2024, order again requiring service of the further responses. As noted in the Court’s ruling on Defendant’s previous motion, while five separate orders were issued on October 10, 2023, each order addressed a separate set of discovery upon which Defendant separately moved to compel. Those orders did not constitute a scenario where there were five “successive orders imposing incrementally increasing sanctions, each of which were violated, which potentially gives rise to the appropriateness of the ultimate terminating sanction.” (2/8/24 Minute Order).

While the motion, like the previous motions, is unopposed, the Court again finds that the ultimate sanction of a terminating sanction is not yet appropriate. As noted above, sanctions are to be incrementally imposed. To date, the Court has only imposed

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2019-00255681-CU-OE-GDS: Angela Ramirez vs. Pacific Gas & Electric Company 06/27/2024 Hearing on Motion for Sanctions in Department 53

monetary sanctions upon Plaintiff for her failures to comply with the October 10, 2023 orders. The sanctions imposed by the Court on October 10, 2023, were monetary sanctions upon Plaintiff’s counsel for failing to meet and confer with respect to the underlying discovery responses. While Plaintiff has not yet complied with the Court’s orders requiring service of further responses to the subject discovery, and while Plaintiff’s counsel may not have been responsive to Defendant’s meet and confer efforts, the Court does not find that this is a scenario where there has been a sufficient “history of abuse, and the evidence shows that less severe sanctions would not produce compliance with the discovery rules” such that a terminating sanction in the form of dismissing Plaintiff’s action is justified. (Mileikowsky, supra, 128 Cal.App.4th at 279- 280.)

Given that the Court has only imposed monetary sanctions, it has not yet been shown that lesser sanctions short of a terminating sanction would not produce Plaintiff’s compliance.

As noted above, Defendant requests evidence or issue sanctions in the event that the Court declines to impose terminating sanctions. To that end Defendant requests issue sanctions “barring any and all claims related to the subject matter of the discovery covered by the Discovery Orders” and that certain facts be established (i.e., that Plaintiff tendered her resignation on June 7, 2019, and voluntarily terminated her employment). (Memo. 6:11-19.) Alternatively, Defendant requests evidentiary sanctions barring “Plaintiff from using or introducing in any dispositive motion or at trial any information, documents and testimony from witnesses related to the issues that form the underlying subject matter of the Discovery Orders.” (Id. 20-22.)

While the Court might have been inclined to impose a more severe sanction than the previously imposed monetary sanctions due to Plaintiff’s non-compliance, the Court finds that Defendant has not shown that the requested evidentiary and issue sanctions are appropriate. To that end, Defendant makes little effort to discuss the underlying discovery which was the subject of the underlying motions leading to the October 10, 2023, orders. Defendant’s separate statement in support of the motion sets forth the underlying discovery requests and Plaintiff’s responses to those requests but does not indicate what about the responses and the failure to provide a further response justifies the requested issue or evidentiary sanctions.

At the very most, Defendant asserts that Plaintiff’s failures to comply have prevented it from being able to investigate “additional information and witnesses in the responses.” (Stonhaus Decl. ¶ 14.) Defendant makes no attempt to explain this statement in light of the discovery at issue.

As set forth above, the sanctions the Court imposes “should not operate in such a fashion as to put the prevailing party in a better position than he would have had if he had obtained the discovery sought and it had been completely favorable to his cause.” (Deyo, supra, 84 Cal. App. 3d at 793.) It must be noted that the underlying discovery motions were motions to compel further responses, as opposed to a motion to compel

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2019-00255681-CU-OE-GDS: Angela Ramirez vs. Pacific Gas & Electric Company 06/27/2024 Hearing on Motion for Sanctions in Department 53

responses which would have reflected a complete failure by Plaintiff to respond to discovery. Indeed, with respect to Defendant’s motion to compel Plaintiff’s further responses to its requests for production, the separate statement filed in support of that motion on July 17, 2023, reflects that Plaintiff interposed no objections to the requests and either agreed to provide responsive documents or indicated that no documents existed. Defendant’s argument in connection with that motion regarding the insufficiency of the responses was only that Plaintiff produced over 300 pages of documents but did not indicate which documents corresponded to which request for production.

While Plaintiff has not complied with the order granting the motion to compel further responses, granting the drastic sanction of barring Plaintiff’s claims related to the discovery or precluding Plaintiff from introducing evidence in support of the claims related to the discovery would put Defendant in a better position than it would be if in fact Plaintiff’s responses to the requests for production specifically identified which documents she produced were responsive to which specific request.

The same is true with respect to the requests for admissions. Defendant’s motion to compel further responses to its requests for admissions involved two requests asking Plaintiff to admit she tendered her resignation and voluntarily terminated her employment. Defendant argued that Plaintiff’s responses to the two requests were incomplete and evasive because her responses sought to admit that she was constructively discharged which was not what the requests asked her to admit. Again, while Plaintiff has not complied with the order granting the motion to compel a further response, the Court finds that the drastic evidentiary or issue sanction, barring Plaintiff’s claims, and deeming the facts in the subject requests admitted, would place Defendant in a better position than had it received the discovery requested.

This is true because while the responses to the requests are evasive to the extent Plaintiff was seeking to admit that she was constructively discharged, which was not what the requests asked Plaintiff to admit, it appears that Plaintiff is in essence seeking to deny the requests for admission.

The underlying special interrogatories and form interrogatories are similar in that many of the identified deficiencies addressed by the underlying motions involve failures to provide dates of employment, dates of complaints made by Plaintiff, or other similar matters. Plaintiff provided some answers to all of the identified interrogatories, for example, by identifying employers, identifying the general nature of her complaints, and identifying individuals she contended were paid more than her for substantially similar work.

While Plaintiff has not complied with the order requiring her further responses to this discovery, Defendant again makes no attempt to tie the requested issue or evidentiary sanctions to the failure to comply. Indeed, the requested issue or evidentiary sanctions simply ask that Plaintiff essentially be barred from pursuing claims related to the subject matter of the underlying discovery or barring Plaintiff from essentially using any information, documents and testimony from witnesses related to the subject matter of the underlying discovery.

The requested sanctions are framed so broadly and essentially could operate as a de facto terminating sanction precluding

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2019-00255681-CU-OE-GDS: Angela Ramirez vs. Pacific Gas & Electric Company 06/27/2024 Hearing on Motion for Sanctions in Department 53

Plaintiff from proceeding with her case. But in any event, and absent a specific showing from Defendant, the requested issue or evidentiary sanctions would place Defendant in a better position than had it received the requested discovery previously ordered by the Court.

As a result, the Court denies Defendant’s request for terminating, issue, or evidentiary sanctions, without prejudice in the event that Plaintiff continues to fail to comply with the discovery orders.

The Court notes that Defendant refers to Plaintiff’s counsel’s claimed “evasive conduct” in cases in other courts. (Memo. 5, fn. 1.) Those references have no relevance to the instant motion.

The Court will once again order Plaintiff Angela Ramirez to serve verified responses to Defendant’s form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and requests for production as twice previously ordered by the Court. Such responses shall be served no later than July 12, 2024. Given the previous orders, Plaintiff’s continued failure to comply with this order may result in the imposition of more severe sanctions, including terminating sanctions. To be clear, having given Plaintiff multiple orders to provide discovery, the Court’s patience has worn thin. Plaintiff must comply with the Court’s orders if she wishes to continue to prosecute her case and should not expect any additional grace period.

In light of Plaintiff’s continued non-compliance with the Court’s orders, the Court will grant Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions. Defendant is awarded monetary sanctions from Plaintiff Angela Ramirez, and her counsel, jointly and severally, in the amount of $2,850 ($475/hr. x 6 hrs.). Sanctions are to be paid on or before July 29, 2024. If sanctions are not paid by that date, Defendant may prepare a formal order granting sanctions for the Court’s signature, and the order may 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. Defendant, however, may choose to file and serve a notice of entry of order to confirm receipt by Plaintiff’s counsel.