Case Number: BC722586 Hearing Date: February 18, 2020 Dept: 29

Fox v. City of Beverly Hills

Defendant’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Compliance with the Court’s Discovery Order and for Monetary Sanctions is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

On 8/23/19, the Court granted Defendant’s Seven Motions to Compel Plaintiff’s Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One; Special Interrogatories, Sets One, Two and Four; and Request for Production of Documents, Sets One, Two and Three. The Court also imposed sanctions of $1,320 against Plaintiff and her counsel. Motion, Ex. A. Defendant served notice of the court’s ruling on 8/27/19. Motion, Ex. B. Plaintiff has not provided verified responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One.

Where a party fails to comply with an order compelling answers, “the court may make those orders that are just,” including the imposition of an issue, evidence, or terminating sanction. The court can also impose a monetary sanction in lieu of or in addition other sanctions. Cal Code Civil Procedure § 2030.290(c).

Plaintiff is ordered to comply with the court’s order of 8/23/19 to provide verified responses without objections to Form Interrogatories, Set One, within 15 days. The Court imposes additional monetary sanctions of $370.00 against Plaintiff, Cherise Fox, and her counsel of record, Vincent J. Quigg, for disobeying a court order to provide discovery, which is a misuse of the discovery process. Cal Code Civil Procedure §2023.010(g); § 2023.030(a).

The Court declines to make further orders regarding the sanctions imposed on 8/23/2019 order. “[M]onetary sanction orders are enforceable through the execution of judgment laws. These orders have the force and effect of a money judgment, and are immediately enforceable through execution, except to the extent the trial court may order a stay of the sanction.” Newland v. Superior Court (1995) 40 Cal. App. 4th 608, 615. Further sanctions for the failure to pay sanctions are not warranted. Id.

Defendant’s request for an issue sanction in the form of vacating the trial date is DENIED. An issue sanction designates facts as established or prohibits any party from supporting or opposing designated claims or defenses. Cal Code Civil Procedure §2023.030(b). Vacating the trial date is not a remedy contemplated by statute. To the extent that Defendant believes that there is good cause for a trial continuance, Defendant can apply to the Court for a continuance.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.