Peter Leroy Miller vs Samuel Gabriel Long, III et al

Case Number

23CV01649

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Fri, 05/16/2025 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

CMC; Motion: Sanctions

Tentative Ruling

For all reasons discussed herein, plaintiff’s motion for evidentiary and monetary sanctions against defendant Samuel Gabriel Long III is granted in part as follows:

1. Evidentiary sanctions are imposed barring Samuel Gabriel Long III from introducing any documentary evidence, that he has not produced to plaintiff, through today’s date, that is responsive to requests for production of documents, set one, nos. 1 through 17, 20 through 40, 42, and 44 through 46, propounded on him by plaintiff.
2. Monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,725.00, for being required to review and organize Long’s prior production, are awarded in favor of plaintiff and against Samuel Gabriel Long III, to be paid by Mr. Long to plaintiff’s counsel no later than June 6, 2025.
3. Monetary sanctions in the amount of $3,222.50, for plaintiff bringing the present motion, plus the filing fee associated with the motion, are awarded in favor of plaintiff and against Samuel Gabriel Long III, to be paid by Mr. Long to plaintiff’s counsel no later than June 6, 2025.

Background: 

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. By way of 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 are 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 on August 22, 2023.

On November 28, 2023, plaintiff separately filed two motions for orders compelling Long and Gray to comply with defendants’ 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 January 26, 2024, Long produced some documents via email by providing a DropBox link with a representation that he would supplement the production to add specific names to match the document request numbers. (Grosch Decl., ¶ 18.) The January 26, 2024, production consisted of over 1,000 pages in the form of hundreds of separate files in multiple formats, identified with seemingly random numbers and letters, and lacking any Bates Numbering. (Id. at ¶ 19.) It appeared that most categories of documents were left out entirely, including bank statements covering the entire period, rent receipts, and complete mortgage records. (Ibid.)

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.

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, and remains, 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 second discovery motion). In support of the second discovery motion, plaintiff submitted the declaration of his counsel, who declared that on January 26, 2024, Long produced documents and transmitted a check for plaintiff’s legal fees. Counsel further declared 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 any other way to enable counsel to determine which documents are responsive to which request, and which would take extensive time to review to determine if all responsive documents were actually produced.”

Plaintiff’s counsel also declared that between January 26 and March 20, 2024, the parties communicated regarding what counsel described 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). Counsel declared that although Long’s former counsel had agreed to provide a supplemental document production by April 8, 2024, Long’s counsel failed to do so necessitating the filing of the second discovery motion.

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 second discovery 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 served notice of the court’s ruling as reflected in the Minute Order.

On July 16, 2024, plaintiff filed a joint “supplement” to the second discovery motion which appears to be signed by Long, and in which the parties stated 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 stated that as of July 15, 2024, Long was “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 second discovery 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 second discovery motion to October 4, 2024.

In the Court’s tentative ruling issued prior to the October 4, 2024, hearing on the second discovery 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. (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 appeared at the October 4, 2024, hearing on the second discovery 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 second discovery 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 second discovery motion, 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.)

On October 25, 2024, the hearing on the second discovery motion was heard. [Note: the second discovery motion also involved Gray, but that is not relevant for the present motion.] As it pertains to Long, the court ordered:

“For all reasons discussed herein, the motion of plaintiff to compel further production of documents from 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.” (Oct. 25, 2024, Minute Order.)

Long missed both deadlines in the October 25, 2024, order, failing to provide any supplemental documents, responses, or pay the monetary sanctions. (Grosch Decl., ¶ 26.) On November 26, 2024, and January 14, 2025, plaintiff’s counsel sent emails to Long regarding compliance with the court order. (Id. at ¶¶ 27, 28 & Exhs. 21, 23.) Plaintiff’s counsel also followed up with Long “repeatedly by phone leaving voicemails when possible,” but Long never answered any of the calls or called back. (Id. at ¶ 29.)

Plaintiff now moves for evidentiary and monetary sanctions against Long due to Long’s failure to comply with the October 25, 2024, order. Plaintiff requests that the court order: (1) Long be barred from introducing any documentary evidence aside from the documents he produced through former counsel on or about January 14, 2024; (2) Monetary sanctions be awarded in favor of plaintiff in the amount of $2,875 for fees incurred to organize Long’s 1,051 pages of production due to Long’s repeated violation of Code of Civil Procedure section 2010.280, subdivision (a); and (3) Monetary sanctions be awarded in favor of plaintiff in the amount of $3,797.50 for attempting to obtain Long’s compliance with the discovery orders and preparation and filing of the present motion.

Long has filed no opposition or other responsive document to the present motion.

Analysis:

            Evidentiary Sanctions

If a party “fails to obey [an] order compelling a response [to a demand for production of documents], the court may make those orders that are just, including the imposition of an issue sanction, an evidence sanction, or a terminating sanction.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (c).)

“California’s pretrial discovery procedures are designed to minimize the opportunities for fabrication and forgetfulness, and to eliminate the need for guesswork about the other side’s evidence, with all doubts about discoverability resolved in favor of disclosure.” (Glenfed Development Corp. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1119.)

California discovery law authorizes a range of penalties for a party’s misuses of the discovery process, including monetary sanctions, evidentiary sanctions, issue sanctions, and terminating sanctions. (§§ 2023.010, 2023.030; Los Defensores, Inc. v. Gomez (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 377, 390; Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 967, 991.)

While in the context of the below case the court was discussing interrogatories and terminating sanctions, the factors listed are also relevant for a failure to comply with a court order to provide further responses to RFPs.

“[A] variety of factors may be relevant, including, 1) the time which has elapsed since interrogatories were served, 2) whether the party served was previously given a voluntary extension of time, 3) the number of interrogatories propounded, 4) whether the unanswered questions sought information which was difficult to obtain, 5) whether the answers supplied were evasive and incomplete, 6) the number of questions which remain unanswered, 7) whether the questions which remain unanswered are material to a particular claim or defense, 8) whether the answering party has acted in good faith, and with reasonable diligence, 9) the existence of prior orders compelling discovery and the answering party’s response thereto, 10) whether the party was unable to comply with the previous order of the court, 11) whether an order allowing more time to answer would enable the answering party to supply the necessary information, and, 12) whether a sanction short of dismissal or default would be appropriate to the dereliction.” (Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 796-797.)

Here, the relevant factors weigh heavily in favor of evidentiary sanctions. Plaintiff has been attempting to obtain the documents for over a year. Long was given multiple extensions of time to comply, by both plaintiff and the court. There are 42 requests, which is appropriate for the issues to which the requests are directed. The requested information would be entirely in the possession of Long and difficult to obtain by any other means. As reflected in prior court orders, the production (or lack thereof) is evasive and incomplete. There are multiple categories of documents omitted that leave plaintiff without answers to the material claim of Long to offsets and credits. Long has failed to act in good faith or with reasonable diligence. As noted above, there were prior orders to provide supplemental responses, and those orders were essentially ignored. There is no evidence, or reason to believe that Long was unable to comply with the previous orders. An order allowing yet more time to comply with the prior orders would be futile.

Monetary sanctions have already been imposed. It is therefore appropriate to impose the more severe evidence sanction at this time. The court has reviewed the proposed order and finds that it is too restrictive. Paragraph 2 of the order shall be modified to state: “The court orders evidentiary sanctions barring Samuel Gabriel Long III from introducing any documentary evidence, that he has not produced to plaintiff, through May 16, 2025, that is responsive to requests for production of documents, set one, nos. 1 through 17, 20 through 40, 42, and 44 through 46, propounded on him by plaintiff.”

            Monetary Sanctions

As noted above, plaintiff seeks sanctions of $2,875 for fees incurred to organize Long’s 1,051 pages of production due to Long’s repeated violation of Code of Civil Procedure section 2010.280, subdivision (a), and monetary sanctions of $3,797.50 for attempting to obtain Long’s compliance with the discovery orders and preparation and filing of the present motion.

“The court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct. The court may also impose this sanction on one unsuccessfully asserting that another has engaged in the misuse of the discovery process, or on any attorney who advised that assertion, or on both. If a monetary sanction is authorized by any provision of this title, the court shall impose that sanction unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030, subd. (a).)

“ ‘ “Only two facts are absolutely prerequisite to imposition of the sanction: (1) there must be a failure to comply [with a valid discovery order] . . . and (2) the failure must be willful . . .” ’ ” [Citations].” (Kayne v. The Grande Holdings Limited (2011) 198 Cal.App.4^th 1470, 1474.) Sanctions may be imposed for a party failing to properly organize documents, forcing the requesting party to bear the costs in organizing them. (Id. at p. 1476.)

Here, there is no dispute that Long failed to comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 2010.280, subdivision (a) even after being ordered to do so. The refusal to comply was willful.

Plaintiff’s counsel declares: “I spent approximately 5 hours reviewing and cataloguing the 1,051 pages of production provided by Defendant, which time could have been entirely avoided had Defendant complied with statute and this Court’s order. My hourly billing rate is $575 an hour. This sum is justified by my seventeen years of litigation experience. Plaintiff has thus incurred $2,8750 in attorney’s fees due to Defendant’s noncompliance.” (Grosch Decl., ¶ 31.)

Based on the court’s experience, the court finds that five hours to review and organize the documents is excessive. Three hours is reasonable at the rate of $575 per hour. Therefore, the court will award plaintiff $1,725.00 in sanctions for the time plaintiff’s counsel spent in reviewing and organizing the documents.

Plaintiff’s counsel also declares: “I spent approximately 2 hours following up with Defendant in an effort to obtain document production. I spent approximately 2.5 hour preparing the motion and all other moving papers. Further, I anticipate spending another 2 hours reviewing and replying to any opposition and appearing for the hearing of this Motion. My hourly billing rate is $575 an hour. This sum is justified by my seventeen years of litigation experience. The motion filing fee is $60. Plaintiff has thus incurred $3,797.50 in attorney’s fees and costs necessitated by this motion.” (Grosch Decl., ¶ 32.)

As there was no opposition to the motion, and as a result the reply was very short, the time estimate for reviewing the opposition, preparing a reply, and appearing for the hearing will be reduced to 1 hour for preparing the short reply and appearing at the hearing. Thus, the amount of sanctions awarded to plaintiff for the present motion, including the $60.00 filing fee, is $3,222.50.