Case Number: BC508122    Hearing Date: September 30, 2014    Dept: 92

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – CENTRAL DISTRICT

MANDANA PARAHAM,
Plaintiff(s),
vs.

INTERNATIONAL COFFEE & TEA, LLC, ET AL.,

Defendant(s).

CASE NO: BC508122

[TENTATIVE] ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS; GRANTING MOTION FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS

Dept. 92
1:30 p.m. — #24
September 30, 2014

Defendant, International Coffee & Tea, LLC’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions is Denied. Defendant’s alternative motion for monetary sanctions is granted. Plaintiff’s attorney of record is ordered to pay sanctions to Defendant, by and through counsel of record, in the amount of $3505 within ten days. Plaintiff is ordered to provide responses to the outstanding discovery, without objections, within ten days.

The trial date of 11/06/14 is advanced to today’s date and continued to 3/06/15 at 8:30 a.m. in D-92. The FSC date of 11/20/14 is advanced to today’s date and continued to 2/17/15 at 10:00 a.m. in D-92.

1. Background Facts
Plaintiff, Mandana Paraham filed this action against Defendant, International Coffee & Tea, LLC for damages arising out of a slip and fall. Plaintiff filed her complaint on 5/06/13. Notably, Plaintiff’s current attorney substituted into the action on 2/21/14.

2. Motion for Terminating Sanctions
At this time, Defendant moves for terminating sanctions. Defendant contends Plaintiff has:
• Failed to respond to special interrogatories;
• Responded to RPDs by stating she would provide documents, but failed to provide documents;
o This failure to provide documents resulted in an IDC, at which Plaintiff failed to appear, and ultimately a motion to compel production, which was granted in the face of no opposition by Plaintiff and no appearance by Plaintiff;
• Failed to pay sanctions imposed in connection with the RPDs motion;
• Failed to respond to meet and confer efforts in connection with the subject discovery.

Plaintiff opposes the motion. Plaintiff concedes that she has failed to respond to interrogatories and that she has failed to produce documents. Plaintiff also concedes she failed to appear at the subject hearings or respond to meet and confer attempts, or to pay the subject sanctions. Plaintiff’s attorney takes the blame for all of the foregoing, contending:
• Counsel was injured in a motorcycle accident on 6/08/13;
• In the spring of 2014, Counsel’s mother and sister were killed in a car accident; Counsel was distraught, and also had to go to Iran to handle their affairs;
• In May of 2014, one of Counsel’s associates left the firm; two others had left the firm shortly before that time;
• New associates were hired in June of 2014, but the transition was not a smooth one;
• Counsel had an MRI on 7/28/14, due to ongoing and worsening pain from the accident; the MRI revealed numerous problems, and Counsel had surgery on 8/28/14 to remedy the pain.

3. Authority Concerning Terminating Sanctions
The court’s decision re sanctions must be consistent with the following public policies re discovery sanctions. The main purpose of discovery sanctions is to enable the interrogating party to obtain the information sought … rather than simply to punish a disobedient party or lawyer. It is an abuse of discretion to impose sanctions solely for punishment purposes. Ghanooni v. Super Shuttle of Los Angeles (1993) 20 CA4th 256, 262.

Before imposing a “terminating” sanction, courts should usually grant lesser sanctions: e.g., orders staying the action until plaintiff complies, or orders declaring matters as admitted or established if answers are not received by a specified date, often accompanied with costs and fees to the moving party. It is only when a party persists in disobeying the court’s orders that the ultimate (“doomsday”) sanctions of dismissing the action or entering default judgment, etc. are justified. Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 776.

4. Analysis
In this case, there has only been one prior motion and only one order has actually been ignored by Plaintiff and her attorney. Plaintiff has also not responded to interrogatories, but there has been no court order in this regard. The Court finds terminating sanctions would be too harsh when it considers the fact that monetary sanctions were only imposed once, and also when it considers the extenuating circumstances discussed by Counsel in the opposition. Defendant correctly notes in reply that the motorcycle accident happened before Counsel took this case; Counsel does, however, declare that his pain worsened over time. Additionally, it appears the problems with Counsel’s family and with turn-over in associates also contributed to the failure to respond to discovery.

The Court is, however, very concerned that Plaintiff has STILL not responded to the outstanding discovery, even in the face of the motion for terminating sanctions. The Court orders Plaintiff to respond to the outstanding interrogatories, without objections, within ten days. The Court also orders Plaintiff to produce the documents she promised to produce (and was ordered to produce) within ten days. The Court will not look fondly on a failure to comply with this order if a future motion for terminating sanctions is filed.

The Court is also inclined to impose additional monetary sanctions. While the Court is sympathetic to Counsel’s numerous problems, the fact remains that Counsel has not complied with his obligation to respond to discovery, which has caused time and expense to be wasted on the part of Defendant. Defense Counsel declares $3505 in attorneys’ fees were incurred in connection with the failure to appear at the IDC and with this motion. The Court finds the amount is fully supported and reasonable, and orders Plaintiff’s attorney to pay the amount in full. The Court notes that Defendant seeks sanctions against Plaintiff and her attorney of record, jointly and severally. It does not, however, appear that Plaintiff personally contributed to the failure to respond in any way, and it would therefore be unfair to impose sanctions on Plaintiff personally.

Finally, the Court notes that trial is currently scheduled for 11/06/14, just over a month from now. Defendant clearly cannot meaningfully prepare for trial in the absence of discovery responses. The Court therefore continues the trial date from 11/06/14 to Friday, 3/06/15. The Court also continues the FSC from 10/20/14 to 2/17/15.

Dated this 30th day of September, 2014

Hon. Elia Weinbach
Judge of the Superior Court