Peter Leroy Miller vs Samuel Gabriel Long, III et al

Case Number

23CV01649

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Fri, 10/25/2024 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

(2) Motions to Compel

Tentative Ruling

(1) For all reasons discussed herein, the motion of plaintiff to compel further production of documents from defendant Samuel Gabriel Long III, is granted. On or before November 8, 2024, defendant Samuel Gabriel Long III shall identify any documents produced in response to plaintiff’s set one request for production of documents nos. 1 through 17, 20 through 40, 42, and 44 through 46, with the specific requests to which the documents respond in compliance with Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.280, subdivision (a). The Court awards sanctions in favor of plaintiff Peter Leroy Miller and against defendant Samuel Gabriel Long III, in the amount of $1,210, payable to plaintiff’s counsel. Payment of sanctions is due by November 25, 2024.

(2) For all reasons discussed herein, the motion of plaintiff to compel further production of documents from defendant Heather Veronica Grey is granted. On or before November 8, 2024, defendant Heather Veronica Gray shall identify any documents produced in response to plaintiff’s set one request for production of documents nos. 1 through 17, 20 through 40, 42, and 44 through 46, with the specific requests to which the documents respond in compliance with Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.280, subdivision (a). The Court awards sanctions in favor of plaintiff Peter Leroy Miller and against defendant Heather Veronica Gray and her counsel in the amount of $1,210, payable to plaintiff’s counsel. Payment of sanctions is due by November 25, 2024.

(3) Plaintiff shall serve notice of the Court’s ruling herein.

Background: 

Only the procedural history of this action which is relevant to the motions at issue will be recited in this ruling. On April 18, 2023, plaintiff Peter Leroy Miller (plaintiff) filed a verified complaint against defendants Samuel Gabriel Long III (Long) and Heather Veronica Gray (Gray) (collectively, defendants), for the partition by sale of two properties located at 2535 De La Vina Street (the Vina Property) and 1708 Castillo Street (the Castillo Property) (collectively, the properties), which are each located in Santa Barbara, California. In the complaint, plaintiff alleges that he holds an undivided 70 percent interest in the Vina Property, in which Long holds a 15 percent interest and Gray holds a 15 percent interest. (Compl., ¶¶ 3-5 & 17.) Long and Gray’s ownership interests in the Vina Property as held as husband and wife. (Id. at ¶ 16.) Plaintiff further alleges that he holds a 50 percent interest in the Castillo Property, in which Long also holds a 50 percent interest. (Id. at ¶¶ 4 & 20-21.) Defendants have refused to sell or buy out plaintiff’s interests in the properties. (Id. at ¶¶ 1 & 33-37.)

On July 21, 2023, defendants answered the allegations of the complaint and filed a cross-complaint against plaintiff alleging one cause of action for breach of contract. (Cross-Compl., ¶¶ 12-13 & 17-20.) Plaintiff filed his answer to the cross-complaint of defendants on August 22, 2023.

On November 28, 2023, plaintiff separately filed two motions for orders compelling Long and Gray to comply with defendants’ purported agreement to produce documents responsive to plaintiff’s set one request for production of documents (the RFP) nos. 1 through 17, 20 through 40, 42, and 44 through 46 (collectively, the first discovery motions). In the first discovery motions, plaintiff requested an award of monetary sanctions against Long and Gray in the total amount of $3,570.

Court records reflect that on January 23, 2024, a stipulation was filed in this action (the discovery stipulation) pursuant to which defendants agreed to produce to plaintiff documents responsive to the RFP at issue in the first discovery motions, and to pay the amount of $2,000 to plaintiff’s counsel for expenses incurred in connection with the first discovery motions. (See Jan. 23, 2024, Stip., ¶¶ 1-2.) Under the terms of the discovery stipulation, plaintiff agreed to withdraw the first discovery motions following plaintiff’s receipt from defendants of the documents and payment described in the discovery stipulation. (Id. at ¶ 3.)

On January 23, 2024, the Court entered an order on the discovery stipulation (the Discovery Order). (See Jan. 23, 2024, Order.) On January 29, 2024, plaintiff filed a notice of withdrawal of the first discovery motions.

On March 25, 2024, attorney Jason P. Koch (Koch) separately filed motions to be relieved as counsel for defendants asserting an irreconcilable breakdown in the attorney-client relationship and a conflict between defendants such that continued representation of these parties by Koch would not be appropriate. (Mar. 25, 2024, Koch Decls., ¶¶ 2.)

On March 29, 2024, Gray and Long separately filed substitutions of attorney substituting themselves as self-represented litigants in this action. On April 3, 2024, Gray filed a substitution of attorney substituting attorney John J. Thyne, III, as her counsel of record. Long remained self-represented in the action. 

On April 8, 2024, plaintiff filed a motion for an order compelling Long to produce documents responsive to RFP nos. 1 through 17, 20 through 40, 42, and 44 through 46, as required by the discovery stipulation (the Long RFP motion). In support of the Long RFP motion, plaintiff submits the declaration of his counsel, Katja M. Grosch (Grosch), who declares that on January 26, 2024, Long produced documents and transmitted a check for plaintiff’s legal fees. (Grosch Decl. [Long RFP Motion], ¶ 18.) Grosch further states that “over 1,000 pages were produced in the form of hundreds of separate files in multiple formats, named with apparently random numbers and letters instead of descriptive titles, lacking any Bates Numbering or other way to enable counsel to determine which documents are responsive to which, and which would take extensive time to review to determine if all responsive documents were actually produced.” (Id. at ¶ 19.)

Grosch also asserts that between January 26 and March 20, 2024, the parties communicated regarding what Grosch describes as Long’s failure to produce all documents in response to the RFP “with the proper identifications as required by” Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.280, subdivision (a). (Grosch Decl. [Long RFP Motion], ¶ 21 & Exh. 15.) Grosch states that although Long’s former counsel had agreed to provide a supplemental document production by April 8, 2024, counsel failed to do so necessitating the filing of the Long RFP motion. (Id. at ¶¶ 23-25 & Exh. 17.)

Pursuant to its May 17, 2024, Minute Order (the Minute Order), the Court ordered the motions of Koch to be relieved as counsel off-calendar based on the filing and service of substitutions of attorney by defendants in this action. In addition, and citing due process concerns with respect to Long’s self-represented status, the Court continued the hearing on the Long RFP motion to permit Long sufficient time to locate new counsel. (May 17, Minute Order.) The Court further ordered plaintiff to meet and confer with Long to determine whether an informal resolution of the issues presented in the Long RFP motion was feasible, and to file and serve a status report describing these efforts including what, if any issues remain outstanding. (Ibid.) The Court also ordered Long to file a status report describing any efforts to locate new counsel or whether Long intends to represent himself in this matter. (Ibid.)

On May 24, 2024, plaintiff filed and ostensibly served notice of the Court’s ruling as reflected in the Minute Order.

On July 16, 2024, plaintiff filed a joint “supplement” to the Long RFP motion which appears to be signed by Long, and in which the parties state that plaintiff and Long have met and conferred “extensively” and that Long has “agreed to provide supplemental, code-compliant responses and to produce additional documentation in response to” the RFP. (July 16, 2024, Joint Supp., ¶ 1.) The parties further state that as of July 15, 2024, Long is “approximately 90 [percent] complete” and is “still working out some access issues” with his former counsel and Gray. (Id. at ¶ 2.) Long and plaintiff requested that the Long RFP motion be continued for 60 days to permit them to continue toward an informal resolution. (Id. at ¶ 3.)

On July 26, 2024, the Court continued the hearing on the Long RFP motion to October 4, 2024.

Also on July 26, 2024, plaintiff filed a motion for an order compelling Gray (the Gray RFP motion) to comply with the agreement to produce documents responsive to RFP nos. 1 through 17, 20 through 40, 42, and 44 through 46, which are the same RFP at issue in the Long RFP motion. (See Notice of Gray RFP Motion at p. 2.) In support of the Gray RFP motion, plaintiff submits a supporting declaration of Grosch which includes the same information presented in the Grosch declaration submitted in support of the Long RFP motion with respect to the circumstances leading up to entry of the Discovery Order and Grosch’s communications with defendants’ former counsel Koch.

With respect to the Gray RFP Motion, Grosch adds that on April 4, 2024, Grosch spoke with Gray’s new counsel who agreed to extend plaintiff’s deadline to file a motion to compel to April 29, 2024. (Grosch Decl. [Gray RFP Motion], ¶ 21.) In subsequent communications between counsel, plaintiff’s deadline to file a motion to compel against Gray was reset to July 28, 2024. (Id. at ¶¶ 22-24.)

In the Court’s tentative ruling issued prior to the October 4, 2024, hearing on the Long RFP motion, the Court noted that it had no information as to the status of the parties’ meet and confer efforts with respect to resolution of the issues presented in that motion. (See Oct. 4, 2024, Minute Order.) The Court directed the parties to appear at the hearing on the Long RFP motion and to provide a status update as to whether they have resolved all such issues, or whether there might be additional issues either for the parties to resolve or which require resolution by the Court. (Ibid.)

Plaintiff and his counsel Grosch appeared at the October 4, 2024, hearing on the Long RFP motion, and informed the Court that there were still discovery issues that remain to be resolved. (Oct. 4, 2024, Minute Order.) Accordingly, the Court further continued the hearing on the Long RFP motion to October 25, 2024, and directed the parties to file, on or before October 18, 2024, a status report as to what, if any, issues remain to be resolved. (Ibid.)

On October 18, 2024, plaintiff separately filed two “supplements” to the Long RFP motion and the Gray RFP motion (collectively, the motions or present motions), stating that plaintiff and Long have met and conferred but that Gray’s counsel has not responded to Grosch’s efforts to meet and discuss an informal resolution, and that neither Gray nor Long have provided supplemental responses or documents. (Oct. 18, 2024, Supplements.)

Neither Long nor Gray have filed oppositions to the present motions.

Analysis:

The present motions are each brought pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.320, under which a demanding party may move for an order compelling compliance upon a responding party’s failure to permit an inspection, copying, testing, or sampling in accordance with that party’s statement of compliance. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.320, subd. (a).) (Note: Undesignated code references shall be to the Code of Civil Procedure unless otherwise indicated.)

In the Long RFP motion, plaintiff contends that Long has failed to produce all documents as agreed to by Long and has failed to identify documents produced with the specific request number to which the documents respond. Plaintiff also requests an award of monetary sanctions against Long in the amount of $1,785.

In the Gray RFP motion, plaintiff states that over 1,000 pages of documents were produced which are not categorized by request numbers. Plaintiff also requests an award of monetary sanctions against Gray in the amount of $3,222.50.

The Court notes that under the Discovery Order, defendants agreed to produce documents responsive to the RFP. Though available information and evidence presented by plaintiff indicates that defendants have produced documents responsive to the RFP, the documents are purportedly not appropriately or sufficiently identified with any specific RFP as required under 2031.280, subdivision (a). The provisions of the Discovery Order do not exempt defendants from complying with code requirements. Moreover, neither Gray nor Long have filed oppositions to the present motions showing that the documents produced by defendants pursuant to the Discovery Order were identified with the specific RFP to which the documents respond as required under subdivision (a) of section 2031.280.

Considering that Gray and Long have failed to present any information or evidence to show that the representations made by plaintiff or his counsel are inaccurate or untruthful, the Court will grant the present motions and order Gray and Long to comply with section 2031.280, subdivision (a), by identifying documents produced by defendants in response to RFP nos. 1 through 17, 20 through 40, 42, and 44 through 46, with the specific RFP to which the documents respond. The Court will further order Gray and Long to, on or before November 8, 2024, either serve verified further responses to RFP nos. 1 through 17, 20 through 40, 42, and 44 through 46 that comply with section 2031.280, subdivision (a) as discussed herein, or to otherwise identify in a code compliant manner the specific RFP to which the documents produced by defendants respond.

With respect to plaintiff’s request for an award of monetary sanctions against Long and Gray, section 2031.320 provides that if a party fails to obey an order compelling an inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, “the court may impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010).” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.320, subd. (c).)

Defendants have failed to demonstrate any justification for failing to comply with section 2031.280, subdivision (a), in producing documents as required under the Discovery Order. Moreover, the Discovery Order does not exempt defendants from complying with code requirements, including section 2031.280, with respect to any production of documents responsive to the RFP. For these reasons, monetary sanctions against Gray and Long are warranted to compensate plaintiff for expenses incurred in bringing the present motions.

“[A] trial court has discretion to reduce the amount of fees and costs requested as a discovery sanction in order to reach a reasonable award.” (Cornerstone Realty Advisors, LLC v. Summit Healthcare Reit, Inc. (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 771, 791.) The amount of the sanctions awarded in connection with a discovery motion needs to reflect the reasonable expenses incurred as a result of the misuse of the discovery process. Notwithstanding that an award of sanctions is justified under the circumstances present here, the Court finds that the amount of attorney fees claimed by plaintiff is excessive.

For example, the sanctions sought by plaintiff include time spent communicating with defendants’ former counsel, Koch, prior to the filing of the first discovery motions on November 28, 2023, in which plaintiff sought monetary sanctions also reflecting time spent with respect to these same communications. (See, e.g., Grosch Decl., Exh. 3-11 [Long RFP Motion] & 3-12 [Gray RFP Motion].) As further discussed above, the Discovery Order included an award of sanctions ostensibly reflecting this time and which plaintiff appears to concede has been paid.

In addition, while the Court recognizes that counsel for plaintiff necessarily spent time preparing each of the present motions and may spend time to prepare for oral argument, the Gray RFP motion is nearly identical if not substantially similar to the Long RFP motion. Though the sanctions sought in the Long RFP motion include 1.5 hours of time to prepare that motion, plaintiff seeks in the Gray RFP motion sanctions reflecting an additional 2 hours of time to prepare the Gray RFP motion. Further, the sanctions sought in each motion reflect an additional 2 hours of time to review and reply to any oppositions to the motions. As further discussed above, the Court has no record of the filing by either Gray or Long of any opposition to the present motions. The issues presented in the Long RFP motion and the Gray RFP motion are also not complex.

Under the circumstances present here including the Court’s experience with addressing attorney fee issues, the Court finds that 4 hours of time at the reasonable hourly rate of $575, for a total of $2,300, constitutes the reasonable amount of attorney fees incurred as a result of the filing of each of the present motions and defendants’ misuse of the discovery process for which monetary sanctions are appropriately awardable. The Court will also award filing fees incurred by plaintiff in the amount of $60 for the Long RFP motion and $60 for the Gray RFP motion.