Case Number
18CV05728
Case Type
Civil Law & Motion
Hearing Date / Time
Fri, 01/05/2024 - 10:00
Nature of Proceedings
Motion for Contempt of Court Order
Tentative Ruling
For the reasons set forth herein:
Regents of the University of California’s Motion for Contempt of Court Order and Terminating Sanctions, or, in the Alternative, for Issue And Evidentiary Sanctions is denied without prejudice.
Ryan Hashimoto is once again ordered to produce all non-privileged documents responsive to Request for Production of Documents Nos. 14, 15, 21, and 22, and to do so on or before January 26, 2024.
Background:
On March 26, 2021, plaintiff Ryan Hashimoto filed a complaint against The Regents of the University of California, the University of California Santa Barbara, and the University of California Santa Barbara Police Department (collectively “Regents”) in Case No. 21CV01256, alleging causes of action for racial discrimination in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), harassment in violation of FEHA, and failure to prevent harassment, discrimination or retaliation in violation of FEHA. Plaintiff is employed as a police officer with the University of California, Santa Barbara Police Department (the “Department”). Plaintiff alleges that on numerous occasions throughout his employment with the Department, he was subjected to discrimination and harassment by white supervisors and personnel based on his race and ethnic background as an Asian-American of Japanese heritage.
On May 28, 2021, defendant Regents served plaintiff with discovery, including a Request for Production of Documents, Set 1. Plaintiff Hashimoto served responses on August 10, 2021, in which he stated that he would produce non-privileged documents responsive to certain of the categories of documents sought by the Request. No documents were served with the response.
By order made after hearing on September 17, 2021, Case No. 21CV01256 was consolidated with a series of other cases pending against the Regents, for pre-trial purposes only (case management, discovery motions, and other pre-trial motions). Case No. 18CV05728 was designated as the lead case. Since the actions were consolidated for pre-trial purposes only, the consolidation order directed the parties to file and calendar all motions and documents in the lead case going forward, and to also separately file all such documents in the separate cases to which they relate.
After meeting and conferring about the issue, and after providing Hashimoto with multiple extensions of time, Regents on April 6, 2022 moved for an order to compel Hashimoto to produce documents, setting the hearing on the motion for June 17, 2022.
Hashimoto did not oppose the motion to compel. After hearing, this Court granted the motion to compel in part, ordering Hashimoto to produce, no later than July 1, 2022, the non-privileged documents responsive to Request Nos. 3-4, 8-11, 13-15, and 17-26. It also ordered Hashimoto to pay sanctions of $1,000 to Regents’ counsel, by July 17, 2022.
Even so, Hashimoto has never produced the documents pursuant to the Court’s order, either by July 1, 2022 or otherwise, nor has he ever paid the sanctions awarded by the Court.
On October 26, 2022, Regents filed a motion for terminating sanctions or, in the alternative, for issue and/or evidentiary sanctions. On February 10, 2023, the hearing on the motion took place and the court declined to grant terminating sanctions or other enhanced sanctions. The court did however order Hashimoto to produce the non-privileged documents responsive to Request Nos. 3-4, 8-11, 13-15, and 17-26. The court made clear that if Hashimoto failed to comply with the order, the court will entertain a further motion for terminating sanctions or enhanced sanctions by Regents.
Regents filed the current motion for contempt of court and terminating sanctions, or in the alternative for issue and/or evidentiary sanctions on September 27, 2023. Regents argue that they provided Hashimoto multiple extensions to produce the documents but that Hashimoto has still failed to produce any documents in response to Request Nos. 14, 15, 21, and 22. Regents have provided correspondence and a screenshot of file folders provided by Hashimoto in response to some of the Requests. The exhibits seem to confirm that Hashimoto has promised to provide responses to Request Nos. 14, 15, 21, and 22 but has failed to do so. Hashimoto has also failed to pay the monetary sanctions ordered on June 17, 2022.
Hashimoto’s counsel was served with the current motion on September 27, 2023. Hashimoto has not filed opposition to the motion.
Analysis:
Contempt
“Disobedience of any lawful judgment, order, or process of the court” is punishable as a contempt of court pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1209, subdivision (a)(5).
“The essential facts to establish contempt for violation of a court order are “ ‘(1) the making of the order, (2) knowledge of the order, (3) ability of the respondent to render compliance, and (4) willful disobedience of the order.’ ” (Moore v. Superior Court of Orange County (2020) 57 Cal.App.5th 441, 456.)
“ ‘It is well settled that the court has inherent power to enforce compliance with its lawful orders through contempt.’ [Citation.]” (In re M.R. (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 49, 56.)
“Although the court has inherent power to punish contempts of court, the Legislature may place reasonable limitations on this power. [Citations.] The Legislature has enacted such limitations on the court’s inherent power in Code of Civil Procedure sections 1209 through 1222. Contempt proceedings under these statutes may arise out of either civil or criminal litigation. [Citation.] “ ‘Because of the potential punishment, [a contempt proceeding] is considered quasi-criminal, and the defendant possesses some of the rights of a criminal defendant.’ ” [Citation.] Among other things, a contemnor’s guilt must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt when punitive sanctions are imposed [citation], and the accused is entitled to a hearing at which the accused may call and cross-examine witnesses.” (Id. at p. 57.)
“A contemptuous act committed in the court’s presence is referred to as a direct contempt and may be addressed summarily. [Citations.] An alleged act of contempt not committed in the immediate view and presence of the court is referred to as an indirect contempt. [Citation.] “ ‘ “The facts supporting indirect contempt arise outside the judge’s presence, requiring a more elaborate procedure to notify the person charged and to afford an opportunity to be heard. [Citations.] A common example is a party’s disobedience of a judge’s order.” ’ ” (Ibid.) “The accused is entitled to a full and fair hearing that satisfies due process.” (Id. at p. 58.)
Hashimoto has produced some of the documents that he was ordered to produce. At the present time, the court is not inclined to issue an order to show cause and set a hearing regarding contempt for Hashimoto’s failure to fully comply with the discovery order.
Sanctions
Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310(i), if a party fails to obey an order compelling further responses, the court may make those orders that are just, including the imposition of an issue sanction, an evidence sanction, or a terminating sanction, and may also impose a monetary sanction either in lieu of or in addition to that sanction. The court has broad discretion in selecting the appropriate penalty. (Los Defensores, Inc. v. Gomez (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 377, 390.) Enhanced (non-monetary) sanctions are also largely available only when the failure to comply with the court order was willful. (See, e.g., Biles v. Exxon Mobil Corporation (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1315, 1327.) Further, the court’s discretion must be exercised in a manner consistent with the basic purposes of such sanctions, e.g., to compel disclosure of discoverable information. (Marriage of Economou (1990) 224 Cal.App.3d 1466, 1475.) Sanctions may also not be imposed solely to punish the offending party. (McGinty v. Superior Court (1994) 26 Cal.App.4th 204, 214.) Further, the sanction chosen should not provide a windfall to the other party by putting the prevailing party in a better position than if he or she had obtained the discovery sought and it had been favorable. (Rutledge v. Hewlett-Packard Company (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 1164, 1193.)
The discovery statutes evince an incremental approach to discovery sanctions, starting with monetary sanctions and ending with the ultimate sanction of termination. (Doppes v. Bendley Motors, Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 967, 991.) A terminating sanction should generally not be imposed until the court has attempted less severe alternatives and found them to be unsuccessful, and the record clearly shows lesser sanctions would be ineffective. (Lopez v. Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc.(2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 566, 604–605.)
Request No. 14 seeks “any and all writings that substantiate [Hashimoto’s] claim of damages for the period of five (5) years prior to the date of the beginning of the loss and continuing through the present.”
Request No. 15 seeks “a schedule or basis of computation of loss claimed to have been sustained.”
Request No. 21 seeks: “All DOCUMENTS that support to the economic damages [Hashimoto] seek[s] through [his] COMPLAINT.”
Request No. 22 seeks: “All DOCUMENTS that support the general damages [Hashimoto] seek[s] through [his] COMPLAINT.”
Regents are undisputedly entitled to conduct discovery related to the economic damages that Hashimoto is claiming. However, given that Hashimoto has partially complied with the court’s previous order, by providing documents responsive to other requests, it will not issue terminating sanctions at this time.
In taking an incremental approach to sanctions, the court would be inclined to order issue sanctions or evidentiary sanctions. However, while a separate statement is not required for a motion for terminating sanctions (Siry Investment, L.P. v. Farkhondehpour (2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 1098, 1119), a party seeking issue sanctions or evidentiary sanctions must file a separate statement pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1345 (a)(7). Regents did not do so. Because of the failure to file a separate statement, the court must deny Regents’ request for issue and evidentiary sanctions.
Hashimoto will once again be ordered to comply with the previous discovery orders. Should he not do so, no later than January 26, 2024, Regents may again seek appropriate sanctions, provided that the California Rules of Court and other relevant statutes are properly complied with.
