Michael Graybill vs Santa Barbara County Sheriffs Department

Case Number

23CV02902

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Mon, 04/29/2024 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

CMC; Motion: Sanctions for Evidentiary and/or Issue Sanctions

Tentative Ruling

Michael Graybill v. Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Department 

Case No. 23CV02902

Hearing Date: April 29, 2024                                                  

MATTER:   Defendant’s Motion For Evidentiary And/Or Issue Sanctions

ATTORNEYS:        For Plaintiff Michael Graybill: Self Represented

                             For Defendant County Of Santa Barbara: Rachel Van Mullem, Julius Abanise, Office of the County Counsel

TENTATIVE RULING:

The motion of defendant the County of Santa Barbara is denied without prejudice. Plaintiff is ordered to provide, on or before May 20, 2024, verified responses, without objections, to the set one form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and demands for inspection of defendant the County of Santa Barbara. Defendant is ordered to give notice of the court’s ruling herein to plaintiff at all known addresses.

Background:

On July 7, 2023, plaintiff Michael Graybill filed a complaint in this matter alleging four causes of action against named defendant the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Department (the County Sheriff): (1) general negligence; (2) intentional tort; (3) premises liability; and (4) civil rights violations. (Compl., ¶ 10(a), (c), (e), & (f).) As alleged in the complaint:

On January 11, 2023, after plaintiff called the County Sheriff to report a threatening gesture, plaintiff was detained on his property located at 5610 Berkeley Road in Goleta, California, by officers of the County Sheriff. (Compl., Attachment at ¶¶ 2 & 3.) During the course of the detention, the County Sheriff’s officers used excessive force, abused their authority, harassed plaintiff, and implemented illegal practices and procedures. (Id. at ¶ 4.) In addition, the officers forced plaintiff to the ground inside a concrete isolation cell, cut off plaintiff’s clothing, implemented armlocks, and suffocated plaintiff. (Id. at ¶ 7.) As a result of the excessive force used by officers of the County Sheriff, plaintiff sustained serious injuries. (Ibid.)

Other incidents occurred on July 12, 2021, when the County Sheriff’s officers violated the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) by releasing plaintiff’s medical information to the Santa Maria Times, and on August 10, 2021, when the officers violated plaintiff’s civil rights by failing to enforce the law when plaintiff was assaulted by Alex Graybill and by making medical statements to doctors in violation of HIPAA. (Compl., Attachment at ¶ 5.)

On September 11, 2023, the County Sheriff filed its answer to plaintiff’s complaint generally denying its allegations and asserting thirteen affirmative defenses.

Court records reflect that on November 15, 2023, the County Sheriff filed an unopposed motion to compel plaintiff to respond, without objection, to the County Sheriff’s set one form interrogatories (the FI), special interrogatories (the SI), and inspection demands (the RFP) (collectively, the discovery requests). On January 22, 2024, the court granted the motion to compel of the County Sheriff and ordered plaintiff to provide, no later than March 1, 2024, verified responses to the FI, the SI, and the RFP, without objections. (See Jan. 22, 2024, Minute Order.)

On March 8, 2024, the County Sheriff filed a motion for an order imposing issue and evidentiary sanctions against plaintiff, on the grounds that plaintiff has failed to provide answers to the discovery requests as ordered by the court notwithstanding that plaintiff appeared at the hearing on the previous motion to compel, requested additional time to respond to the discovery requests, and was provided with notice of the court’s January 22, 2024, Minute Order (the Minute Order). (See Declaration of Julius Abanise, ¶¶ 3-7.) The County Sheriff further contends that it has been prejudiced by plaintiff’s failure to answer the discovery requests because the it has provided responses to plaintiff’s discovery enabling plaintiff to prepare his case while the County Sheriff has been denied answers to its discovery requests. (Id. at ¶ 8.)

Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to the present motion.

Analysis:

Subject to exceptions which do not apply here, if a party fails to obey an order compelling a further response to interrogatories or inspection demands, “the court may make those orders that are just, including the imposition of an issue sanction, an evidence sanction, or a terminating sanction …. In lieu of, or in addition to, that sanction, the court may impose a monetary sanction ….” (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300, subd. (d) & 2031.310, subd. (i).) “The award of discovery sanctions is a matter within the trial court’s discretion” and should be “ ‘ “ ‘appropriate to the dereliction, and should not exceed that which is required to protect the interests of the party entitled to but denied discovery.’ ” ’ ” (Karz v. Karl (1982) 137 Cal.App.3d 637, 648; Lopez v. Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York, Inc. (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 566, 604.)

Available information and court records reflect that plaintiff has failed to comply with the Minute Order by providing verified responses, without objections, to the discovery requests at issue. Plaintiff has not offered any information to explain why he has failed to comply with the Minute Order or provide responses as ordered by the court. Notwithstanding plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Minute Order, there is no evidence or information to demonstrate that, at this stage of the proceedings, a less severe sanction would not produce compliance with the Minute Order or curb plaintiff’s misuse of the discovery process. In addition, though the court would presently be inclined to consider the imposition of monetary sanctions against plaintiff based on plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Minute Order and statutory discovery obligations, the County Sheriff has not made an appropriate request for an award of monetary sanctions in the motion.

Under the circumstances present here and at this stage of the proceedings, the court finds that the evidence and issue sanctions requested by the County Sheriff are not appropriate or presently warranted. Therefore, the court will deny the motion without prejudice to the filing of a future motion by the County Sheriff for monetary sanctions or, if justified, more severe sanctions.

In addition, the court will order plaintiff to provide verified responses, without objections, to the discovery requests of the County Sheriff on or before May 20, 2024. To the extent plaintiff fails to provide responses to the discovery requests as ordered herein and in the Minute Order, the court will consider the imposition of monetary sanctions against plaintiff, and may be inclined to consider the imposition of evidence and issue sanctions. The court notes that any continued failure of plaintiff to respond to comply with this court’s orders by properly responding to the discovery requests may result in the imposition of more severe sanctions up to and including terminating sanctions. The court will also order the County Sheriff to give notice of the court’s ruling herein.