Case Name:    Sikh Gurdwara-San Jose, et al. v. Kulwant Singh

 

Case Number:  112CV232644

 

On 17 October 2014, the motion of Plaintiffs Sikh Gurdwara-San Jose, et al. (“Plaintiffs”) to compel Defendant Kulwant Singhor (Defendant) to answers was argued and submitted.

Defendants did not file formal opposition to the motion.[1]

Statement of Facts

This action arises from a suit against Defendant Kulwant Singh (“Defendant”) for defamation and libelous statements concerning Plaintiffs Sikh-San Jose, Sukhdev Bainiwal, Bhupindar Singh Dhillon, Sarbjot Singh Swaddi, Pritam Grewal and Rajinder Singh Mangar (collectively “Plaintiffs”). Plaintiffs seek to end the defamatory practices, compensatory damages, punitive damages, and injunctive relief.

Discovery Dispute

On October 8, 2014, Plaintiff’s counsel engaged in the continued deposition of Defendant. Before the deposition, both parties had agreed in a stipulation that the deposition would continue for no less than four hours of record testimony.

During the disposition, defense counsel made objections to a number of questions and then instructed defendant not to answer. Counsel for both parties met and conferred about the propriety of the objections on the record and also off the record during break.

According to the moving paper, Defense counsel unilaterally ended the deposition after about three hours and forty-five minutes on the record and instructed his client to leave after Plaintiff stated “I’ll give you one more chance to tell me the truth …,” before Plaintiffs’ counsel could introduce a document disputing Defendant’s testimony.

Because trial is to commence on October 20, 2014, Plaintiffs’ counsel filed a motion to compel answers at deposition to prepare for trial.

Analysis

1. Motion to Compel Answers at Deposition
   1. Legal Standard

Section 2025.480 provides that if a deponent fails to answer any question at a deposition, the party seeking discovery may move the court for an order compelling an answer.  (Code Civ. Proc. (“CCP”), § 2025.480, subd. (a).) If the court determines that the answer sought is subject to discovery, it shall order that the answer be given on the resumption of the deposition. (CCP, § 2025.480, subd. (i).)

A motion to compel answers at a deposition must be accompanied by a Separate Statement. (Rule of Court 3.1345(a)(4)).

Here, Plaintiffs stated that the reason for the moving paper not to have a Separate Statement is due to not receiving a rough copy from the court reporter yet since the deposition was taken on October 8, 2014. Plaintiffs further noted that a Separate Statement would be submitted as soon as practical. However, as of this date, this Court has not yet received Plaintiffs’ Separate Statement for this motion. As a result, this court cannot determine whether further answer should be compelled to answer.

 

Accordingly, Motion to Compel Answers at Deposition is DENIED without prejudice.

Monetary Sanctions

 

Plaintiff cited CCP § 2025.450(g) which states “the court shall impose monetary sanctions against the losing party and/or counsel advising that party . . . unless it finds the losing party acted with substantial justification or other circumstances make imposition of sanctions unjust.” [CCP §§ 2025.450(g)(1), 2025.480(j)]

A court’s authority to award monetary sanctions arises from statutory authority, and not from the court’s own inherent authority. Trans-Action Commercial Investors, Ltd. v. Firmaterr (Jelinek) (1st Dist. 1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 352, 366. This authority is restricted because the Legislature has seen fit to establish such limitations. Jelinek, 60 Cal.App.4th at 371. See also Bauguess v. Paine (1978) 22 Cal.3d 626, 638-39.  It is the responsibility of the moving party to provide authority for any proposition, including sanctions. See Quantum Cooking Concepts, Inc. v. LV Assoc., Inc. (2d Dist. 2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 927, 934

A party requesting sanctions must include in the notice of motion: 1) a list of all parties and attorneys against whom sanctions are sought; 2) identify the type of sanction sought (e.g., monetary, issue, etc.); 3) Cite the authority that authorizes the court to grant such sanctions. Code Civ. Proc. §2023.040. A moving party’s failure to identify the parties or attorneys against whom sanctions are sought does not give proper notice to those parties or attorneys, and is therefore void. See Blumenthal v. Superior Ct. (1st Dist. 1980) 103 Cal.App.3d 317, 320. The moving party must also include a declaration setting forth facts supporting both the discovery motion and the amount of any monetary sanction sought. See Code Civ. Proc. §2023.040, California Practice Guide, Civil Procedure Before Trial (Weil & Brown), § 8:1196.

Section 2023.010 defines acts that constitute misuses of the discovery process, and does not itself set forth any provisions regarding the issuance of a monetary sanction.

Section 2023.030 authorizes a court to impose the specified types of sanctions, “[t]o the extent authorized by the chapter governing any particular discovery method or any other provision of this title.” This means that the statutes governing the particular discovery methods limit the permissible sanctions to those sanctions provided under the applicable governing statutes.”  New Albertsons, Inc. v. Superior Court (Shanahan) (2d Dist. 2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1422.  As such, section 2023.030 does not provide an independent basis for an award of sanctions and thus is not self-executing.  In other words, to invoke section 2023.030 as a basis for sanctions, the moving party must first be authorized to seek sanctions under the provisions in the Civil Discovery Act applicable to the discovery requests at issue. The party must cite to the statutory authority that awards sanctions for a particular discovery method (e.g., Cal. Code Civ. Proc. 2030.290, 2031.310, etc.). See Quantum Cooking Concepts, Inc. v. LV Assoc., Inc. (2d Dist. 2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 927, 934.

Here, Defendant has not unsuccessfully opposed the Plaintiffs’ motion. Therefore, the reliance on CCP § 2025.450(g)(1) for monetary sanctions is inapplicable in this case because the Defendant has not unsuccessfully opposed the Plaintiffs’ motion to compel answers at Deposition. The proper authority for monetary sanctions in this case would be Rule of Court 3.1348(a), where the court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition to the motion was filed, or opposition to the motion was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed.

Therefore, request for monetary sanctions is DENIED.

[1] “The failure to file a written opposition or to appear at a hearing or the voluntary provision of discovery shall not be deemed an admission that the motion was proper or that sanctions should be awarded.”  Rule of Court 3.1348(b).