Mark Signa et al vs The Regents of the University of California et al

Case Number

18CV05728

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Fri, 05/31/2024 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

Motion: for Terminating Sanctions

Tentative Ruling

For the reasons set forth herein:

Regents of the University of California’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions is granted as between plaintiff Ryan Hashimoto and defendant Regents of the University of California.

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 regarding issues with the discovery responses, 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.

Having not received responsive documents, 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 would entertain a further motion for terminating sanctions or enhanced sanctions by Regents.

Regents filed a motion for contempt of court and terminating sanctions, or in the alternative for issue and/or evidentiary sanctions on September 27, 2023. Regents argued 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. On January 5, 2024, the court declined to issue an order to show cause for contempt, or to impose enhanced sanctions. However, the court ordered Hashimoto to produce all non-privileged documents responsive to Request Nos. 14, 15, 21, and 22 no later than January 26, 2024.

Regents filed the present motion for terminating sanctions, or in the alternative for issue and evidentiary sanctions, on March 21, 2024. Counsel for Regents declares: “To date, Hashimoto has yet to produce non-privileged documents responsive to The Regents’ RFP Nos. 14, 15, 21 and 22.” (Orozco Dec., ¶ 29.)

The motion was served on Hashimoto, as well as the other parties to this action, on March 21, 2024.

Hashimoto has not filed opposition, or any other response, to the motion.

Analysis:

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.)

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 has now been attempting to obtain the subject documents for three years. Hashimoto has been given every opportunity to comply and has continuously failed to do so. Further, the court specifically warned Hashimoto, nearly 17 months ago, that if he did not comply with the court order and produce the documents, the court would consider issuing terminating sanctions. Even after that, Hashimoto was given another opportunity to comply, yet he failed to do so. In addition, Regents attempted to meet and confer with Hashimoto on numerous occasions, and gave him multiple extensions within which to provide documents, but despite promises to do so, Hashimoto failed to produce the documents. Regents has been prejudiced by Hashimoto’s failure to comply with the discovery orders and the court finds Hashimoto’s failure to produce the documents is intentional and willful.

It has become apparent that terminating sanctions are warranted and that no lesser sanctions will be effective in compelling Hashimoto to comply. The requests at issue are vital elements of Hashimoto’s case as they go to damages. Withholding evidence of the claimed damages deprives Regents of the opportunity for a fair trial.

The motion for terminating sanctions will be granted. As terminating sanctions will be granted, additional monetary sanctions will not be ordered.