Michael Graybill vs County of Santa Barbara

Case Number

23CV02902

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Mon, 03/10/2025 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

Motion re Sanctions

Tentative Ruling

Michael Graybill v. Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Department

Case No. 23CV02902

           

Hearing Date: March 10, 2025                                    

MATTER:                Defendant’s Motion For Monetary And/Or Issue And/Or Terminating Sactions

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, for terminating sanctions, is granted. The case is dismissed.

Background:

On July 7, 2023, plaintiff Michael Graybill filed a complaint in this matter alleging four causes of action against named defendant the County of Santa Barbara (erroneously sued as Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Department) (the County). for: (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 filed its answer to plaintiff’s complaint generally denying its allegations and asserting thirteen affirmative defenses. Also on September 11, 2023, the County served its first set of discovery on plaintiff, consisting of form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and inspection demands. (Abanise Dec., ¶ 2 & Exhs. 1-3.)

On November 15, 2023, the County filed an unopposed motion to compel plaintiff to respond, without objection, to the County’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 and ordered plaintiff to provide, no later than March 1, 2024, verified responses to the FI, the SI, and the RFP, without objections. (Abanise Dec., ¶ 3 & Exh. 4.)

On March 8, 2024, the County filed a motion for an order seeking issue and evidentiary sanctions against plaintiff on the grounds that plaintiff 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 County further argued that it has been prejudiced by plaintiff’s failure to answer the discovery requests because it has provided responses to plaintiff’s discovery enabling plaintiff to prepare his case while the County has been denied answers to its discovery requests. Plaintiff did not oppose the motion.

On April 29, 2024, the court denied the motion without prejudice but ordered plaintiff to respond to all discovery without objections no later than May 13, 2024. (Abanise Dec., ¶ 6 & Exh. 5.) Plaintiff did not provide responses. (Ibid.)

On July 29, 2024, the court again ordered plaintiff to provide complete, code-compliant responses to the discovery, no later than August 19, 2024, and imposed monetary sanctions of $885.20. (Abanise Dec., ¶ 8 & Exh. 6.) Plaintiff did not provide responses. (Ibid.)

On August 28, 2024, the County filed and served another motion for evidentiary, monetary, and/or issue sanctions. On November 18, 2024, the court granted the motion and ordered evidentiary sanctions, as well as additional monetary sanctions in the amount of $355.77. Plaintiff was ordered to respond to discovery by December 9, 2024. Included in the minute order of November 18, 2024, is: “[P]laintiff will once again be ordered to provide responses to the discovery requests. If he fails to do so, following a properly noticed, and procedurally correct, motion by the County, the court would be inclined to issue terminating sanctions in favor of the County.” The notice of ruling, containing the court order, was served on plaintiff the same day as the hearing. Plaintiff has failed to provide responses or pay the ordered sanctions. (Abanise Dec., ¶ 10.)

The County now moves for additional sanctions, including terminating sanctions.

Plaintiff has not filed any opposition or other response to the present motion.

Analysis:

If a party “fails to obey an order compelling further responses to interrogatories, 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., § 2030.300, subd. (e).)

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 (Doppes).)

Despite this broad discretion, it has long been recognized that the terminating - sanction is a drastic penalty. “A decision to impose the ultimate sanction - a judgment in the opposing party’s favor - should not be made lightly. ‘But where a violation is willful, preceded by a history of abuse, and the evidence shows that less severe sanctions would not produce compliance with the discovery rules, the trial court is justified in imposing the ultimate sanction.’ ” (Parker v. Wolters Kluwer United States, Inc. (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 285, 297, quoting Mileikowsky v. Tenet Healthsystem (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 262, 279-280, overruled on another point in Mileikowsky v. West Hills Hospital & Medical Center (2009) 45 Cal.4th 1259, 1273.) “ ‘[S]anctions “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.’ ” ” (Doppes, supra, 174 Cal.App.4th at p. 992.) The discovery statutes thus “evince an incremental approach to discovery sanctions, starting with monetary sanctions and ending with the ultimate sanction of termination.” (Ibid.)

Plaintiff has been ordered to respond to the discovery four times, monetary sanctions have been imposed, and evidentiary sanctions have been imposed. Plaintiff still refuses to respond to the discovery. It is clear: plaintiff is unwilling to follow through with his discovery obligations, resulting from an action he filed, and refuses to comply with orders of the court. Plaintiff’s refusal to respond to discovery is willful and is preceded by a history of discovery abuse. The court will now issue terminating sanctions. It is apparent that plaintiff is unwilling to participate in this action and that no other sanctions will compel compliance.