Case Number: BC653531 Hearing Date: June 01, 2018 Dept: 32

laura shapiro, et. al.

Plaintiffs,

v.

morad ben neman, et. al.

Defendant.

Case No.: BC653531

Hearing Date: June 1, 2018

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

defendants’ motion for terminating sanctions

BACKGROUND

This action is brought by seventy-five individual Plaintiffs against eighteen Defendants related to a property located on East Pico Boulevard in Los Angeles. Plaintiffs allege claims arising out of the warranty of habitability, negligence, and various statutory violations.

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

The Defendants’ Request for Judicial Notice (“RJN”) is GRANTED. (Cal. Evid. Code §452, 453.)

DISCUSSION

It is a misuse of the discovery process to fail “to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery,” (CCP § 2023.010(d)) or to disobey “a court order to provide discovery.” (CCP § 2023.010(g).) Under CCP § 2023.030, courts have the authority to issue monetary sanctions, evidentiary sanctions, or terminating sanctions after giving parties proper notice and the opportunity to be heard.

In determining whether sanctions should be imposed, courts consider the totality of the circumstances, including the “conduct of the party to determine if the actions were willful; the detriment to the propounding party; and the number of formal and informal attempts to obtain the discovery.” (Lang v. Hochman (2000) 77 Cal. App. 4th 1225, 1246.) “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.” (Wilson v. Jefferson (1985) 163 Cal. App. 3d 952, 959.)

Defendants move for terminating sanctions, or evidentiary sanctions in the alternative, on the grounds that Plaintiffs failed to produce documentation and responses in compliance with the Court’s April 21, 2017 order for responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Requests for Admissions and Form Interrogatories, Set One. (Klein Decl. ¶5.) Defendants state they received some documents from 70 of the Plaintiffs on or around May 30, 2017. (Klein Decl. ¶5-6.) Defendants state they received unverified responses to the RFPs and FIs from some, but not all, Plaintiffs. (Id.) The Court’s September 29, 2017 order found the responses and production to date were not compliant with CCP §2031.210(a) and granted Defendant’s Motions to Compel plus sanctions in the sum of $10,000. (Klein Decl. ¶12, Exh. 7.) Plaintiff’s responses to the September 29, 2017 orders were due on December 15, 2017. (Klein Decl. ¶14, Exh. 8.) However, Defendants contend they have not received a single response in compliance with the September 29, 2017 order.

In opposition, Plaintiffs concede that an evidentiary sanction precluding the introduction of documents from Plaintiff’s records not provided in 2017 or the current Responses and supplemental production of documents would be appropriate. (Opp 2:20-23.)

For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that Plaintiffs are precluded from introducing any documents provided after December 15, 2017 into evidence. Defendants’ motion for evidentiary sanctions is GRANTED. Defendants’ motion for terminating sanctions is DENIED.

Defendants request monetary sanctions pursuant to CCP §2023.010, are granted in the amount of $4,480.00 against plaintiffs only. The Court finds that Plaintiffs’ attorneys were making a good faith effort to obtain the missing responses. (See Martz Decl. ¶4-7.)