2017-00207779-CU-PA

Alexander Smith vs. Inderjeet Singh Grewal

Nature of Proceeding: Motion for Sanctions

Filed By: Sette, Frederick J.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Monetary Sanctions for Failure of Defendants to Comply with the Court Order of Dec. 6, 2017 is GRANTED.

On of Dec. 6, 2017 Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendants to provide Answers to Form Interrogatory 4.1(e) was unopposed and was granted by this Court. Defendants were ordered to serve verified Answers to Form Interrogatory 4.1(e) not later than Dec. 18, 2017. Sanctions were neither requested nor imposed.

On Dec. 7, 2017, plaintiff notified defense counsel of the Court’s order by FAX. (Sette Dec., ¶ 3, Exh. A.)

Defendants have failed to comply with the Court order of Dec. 6, 2017. No verified Answers to Form Interrogatory 4.1(e) have been received by counsel for plaintiff from the defense.

Plaintiff now moves for imposition of monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,360.00 on defendants Inderjeet Singh Grewal and Rajvinder Grewal, for failure to comply with the Court’s Order of Dec. 6, 2017.

The Court finds that the defendants’ repeated conduct of failing to comply with discovery obligations and disobedience of a court order requires that the Court find an abuse of the discovery process and award sanctions on that basis. (Laguna Auto Body v. Farmers Insurance Exchange (1991) 231 Cal. App. 3d 481.) Failing to respond to an authorized method of discovery and disobeying a court order to provide discovery are both misuses of the discovery process. (§ 2023.010, subds. (d) & (g).) Indeed, failure to obey the prior court order necessitated this motion.

Monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,035.00, representing reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred in bringing this motion of three hours at $325/hr., together with the $60 filing fee, shall be paid by defendants Inderjeet Singh Grewal and Rajvinder Grewal, to counsel for plaintiff not later than Monday, Feb. 26, 2018. If sanctions are not paid by that date, moving party may present a formal order for the sanctions award in the total amount owing so that the order may be separately enforced as a judgment. See Newland v Superior Court (1995) 40 Cal.App.4 608, 610.

At this juncture, 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 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.)

Should the defendants continue to ignore their discovery obligations, including failing to obey an order compelling answers, the court with entertain a motion for further sanctions, including the imposition of an issue sanction, an evidence sanction, or a terminating sanction. (See, e.g. New Albertsons, Inc. v. Superior Court (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1408.)