Michael P Sipiora vs Santa Barbara Graduate School

Case Number

24CV00466

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Fri, 09/19/2025 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

Motion to Compel

Tentative Ruling

For all reasons discussed herein:

1. Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to requests for production of documents, set two, Nos 76 and 77, is moot as to further production of documents, but not moot as to sanctions.
   1. Monetary sanctions are awarded in favor of plaintiff and against Santa Barbara Graduate School, Inc. in the amount of $5,000.00, payable to counsel for plaintiff no later than October 24, 2025.
   2. Evidentiary sanctions are denied without prejudice.
2. Appearances by counsel, either in person or virtually, are required to discuss the status of the case and scheduling issues.

Background: 

This action commenced on January 29, 2024, by the filing of the complaint by plaintiff Michael P. Sipiora (“Sipiora”) against defendant Santa Barbara Graduate School, Inc. dba Pacifica Graduate Institute (“Pacifica”).

On March 15, 2024, prior to an answer being filed, Sipiora filed his operate verified first amended complaint (“FAC”), alleging violations of the Government Code, Labor Code, Public Policy, and Breach of Contract. Sipiora alleges that he was employed with Pacifica as a professor, under a series of written contracts, for more than 10 years before he was effectively terminated on July 29, 2022, in retaliation for objecting to and complaining about Pacifica’s harassment and mistreatment of female members of Pacifica faculty, in violation of California law including the California Fair Employment and Housing Act.

On April 30, 2024, Pacifica filed its verified answer to the FAC, admitting some allegations and denying others. Pacifica also sets forth 21 affirmative defenses.

On August 26, 2025, plaintiff filed the present motion to compel production of documents responsive to Requests for Production of Documents (RFPs) Nos. 76 and 77.

Pacifica opposes the motion arguing that it has produced all responsive documents.

By way of Reply, plaintiff acknowledges that the motion is moot, as to the production of additional documents, but argues that sanctions should still be imposed for Pacifica’s abuse of the discovery process.

Analysis:

As it appears that all responsive documents have now been produced, the motion is moot except as to plaintiff’s requests for evidentiary and monetary sanctions.

“Except as provided in subdivision (d) [not applicable here], the court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel compliance with a demand, 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., § 2031.320.)

“Misuses of the discovery process include, but are not limited to, the following:

“(a) Persisting, over objection and without substantial justification, in an attempt to obtain information or materials that are outside the scope of permissible discovery.

“(b) Using a discovery method in a manner that does not comply with its specified procedures.

“(c) Employing a discovery method in a manner or to an extent that causes unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression, or undue burden and expense.

“(d) Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery.

“(e) Making, without substantial justification, an unmeritorious objection to discovery.

“(f) Making an evasive response to discovery.

“(g) Disobeying a court order to provide discovery.

“(h) Making or opposing, unsuccessfully and without substantial justification, a motion to compel or to limit discovery.

“(i) Failing to confer in person, by telephone, or by letter with an opposing party or attorney in a reasonable and good faith attempt to resolve informally any dispute concerning discovery, if the section governing a particular discovery motion requires the filing of a declaration stating facts showing that an attempt at informal resolution has been made.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010.)

“(a) 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.

“(b) The court may impose an issue sanction ordering that designated facts shall be taken as established in the action in accordance with the claim of the party adversely affected by the misuse of the discovery process. The court may also impose an issue sanction by an order prohibiting any party engaging in the misuse of the discovery process from supporting or opposing designated claims or defenses.

“(c) The court may impose an evidence sanction by an order prohibiting any party engaging in the misuse of the discovery process from introducing designated matters in evidence.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030, subds. (a)-(c).)

“The court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition to the motion was filed, or opposition to the motion was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1348(a).)

“If a party filing a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling under Sections 2031.210, 2031.220, 2031.230, 2031.240, and 2031.280 thereafter fails to permit the inspection, copying, testing, or sampling in accordance with that party’s statement of compliance, the demanding party may move for an order compelling compliance.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.320.)

The following timeline is relevant in determining whether to impose sanctions against Pacifica and, if so, what sanctions are appropriate.

On July 23, 2024, plaintiff served RFPs, set two, which included RFP Nos. 76 and 77. (Sipiora Decl., ¶ 4 & Exh. B.)

RFP No. 76 requires Pacifica to produce: “All DOCUMENTS containing any STATEMENT to or from Plaintiff CONCERNING Oksana Yakushko, Jennifer Sandoval, Elizabeth Schewe, Robyn Cass, Peter Dulap, Joseph Cambray, or Peter Rojcewicz on or after January 1, 2020.”

RFP No 77 requires Pacifica to produce: “All DOCUMENTS containing any STATEMENT to or from Plaintiff CONCERNING alleged acts of discrimination, harassment, retaliation, intimidation, hostility, ridicule, condescension, or any other form of alleged mistreatment or unprofessional behavior by Pacifica directed to female faculty or staff at Pacifica on or after January 1, 2020.”

           

On August 30, 2024, Pacifica served written responses to the RFPs. (Sipiora Decl., ¶ 5 & Exh. C.) By way of reply to RFP No. 76, after asserting several unmeritorious boilerplate objections, Pacifica responded: “Defendant will comply with this request and will produce all responsive non-privileged documents in its possession, custody or control that are responsive to this request.” (Ibid.) As to RFP No. 77, Pacifica simply replied with objections and did not agree to produce any documents. (Ibid.)

As the result of a motion to compel a further response to RFP No. 77, on November 8, 2024, the court ordered Pacifica to provide a further, code-compliant response, without objection except as to privilege, no later than November 27, 2024. (Sipiora Decl., ¶ 7 & Exh. D.)

On November 29, 2024, two days later than ordered by the court, Pacifica served a supplemental  response to RFP No. 77, stating: “Defendant will comply with this request and will produce all responsive non-privileged documents in its possession, custody, or control that are responsive to this request. (Sipiora Decl., ¶ 8.) No documents were produced with the supplemental response. (Ibid.)

On March 31, 2025, plaintiff’s counsel wrote a letter to Pacifica’s counsel requesting production of all documents responsive to RFP No. 77. (Sipiora Decl., ¶ 9 & Exh. F.) As relevant here, the letter included: “Regarding Plaintiff RFP 77, four months have passed since the Court ordered a further response and seven months have passed since Defendant’s response was due. To date, Defendant has not produced all responsive documents. Plaintiff will allow Defendant one more extension of time to Friday, April 11, 2025, to produce all non-privileged documents responsive to RFP 77. Absent such production, Plaintiff intends to move to compel and seek sanctions. I will be prepared to discuss this further, if necessary, during our meet and confer.” (Id. at Exh. F.)

On April 1, 2025, plaintiff’s counsel wrote a letter to Pacifica’s counsel requesting production of all documents responsive to RFP No. 76. (Sipiora Decl., ¶ 10 & Exh. G.) As relevant here, the letter included: “Regarding Plaintiff’s RFP 76 (which is identical to PMQ RFP 1), on August 30, 2024, Defendant agreed to produce all responsive, non-privileged documents. To date, Defendant has not produced all such documents. Please be prepared to advise me during our April 8th telephonic meet and confer if Defendant will produce on Friday, April 11, 2025, all non-privileged documents responsive to RFP 76 to avoid a motion to compel with a sanctions request.” (Id. at Exh. G.)

On April 8, 2025, plaintiff’s counsel and Pacifica’s counsel participated in a telephonic meet and confer conference. (Sipiora Decl., ¶ 11.) As part of that conference, plaintiff’s counsel stated that Pacifica’s production regarding RFP No. 76 was incomplete and noted at least two documents that were referenced in plaintiff’s FAC that had not been produced. (Ibid.) On April 10, 2025, plaintiff’s counsel wrote to Pacifica’s counsel confirming the substance of the meet and confer conference. (Ibid. & Exh. H.) As relevant here, the letter included: “Regarding Plaintiff’s RFP 76 (which is identical to PMQ RFP 1) and RFP 77 (which is identical to PMQ RFP 2), Plaintiff believes that Defendant’s production is not complete. In response to your request for identification of documents not produced, Plaintiff noted that two documents were referenced in its motion to compel that suggest Defendant’s production is incomplete. Plaintiff will further identify by Bates number documents from its own document production that Plaintiff believes should have been produced by Defendant. It is Plaintiff’s understanding that once Defense Counsel receive the above-referenced document identification, Defense Counsel will consult with Defendant concerning the scope of Defendant’s search to ascertain if all responsive documents have been produced. Plaintiff hereby requests that Counsel confirm by April 18, 2025 that all non-privileged documents responsive to these two requests have been produced, or that any further non-privileged documents will be produced by April 25, 2025. If the requested deadlines are not workable for your office and client, please advise what response times do work.” (Ibid.)

On April 14, 2025, plaintiff’s counsel wrote a letter to Pacifica’s counsel identifying by Bates number four documents that plaintiff believed were in the possession of Pacifica but had not been produced. (Sipiora Decl., ¶ 12 & Exh. I.)

On April 29, 2025, Pacifica’s counsel wrote a letter to plaintiff’s counsel stating: “Defendant is still manually reviewing Dr. Sipiora’s mailbox for responsive documents and expect to produce all responsive documents to RFP 76 and 77 by May 30, 2025.

“Defendant was able to locate SIP00433-435 and SIP 00440-441 and will produce those documents week. With regard to SIP-00504-505 and SIP 00598-600-we have been unable to locate the documents in Dr. Sipiora’s mailbox, so far. If they are contained in his mailbox they will be produced.” (Sipiora Decl., ¶ 13 & Exh. J.)

On May 1, 2025, Pacifica produced the two documents that it indicated it was able to locate, in response to the RFPs served on February 23, 2024. (Sipiora Decl., ¶ 14.)

Despite Pacifica’s representation, in its letter of April 29, 2025, that it expected to produce all responsive documents to RFP Nos. 76 and 77 by May 30, 2025, they did not produce the documents. (Sipiora Decl., ¶ 15.)

On June 9, 2025, plaintiff’s counsel wrote a letter to Pacifica’s counsel noting Pacifica’s failure to produce responsive documents by May 30, 2025, and again requested production of all documents responsive to RFP Nos. 76 and 77. (Sipiora Decl., ¶ 16 & Exh. L.)

On July 17, 2025, approximately six weeks after plaintiff’s June 9, 2025 letter, Pacifica’s counsel responded stating: “Defendant is still manually reviewing Dr. Sipiora’s mailbox for responsive documents. In doing so, we discovered a large amount of highly confidential documents from students and correspondence discussing students that must be thoroughly reviewed to determine if they are responsive, and if so, confidential information about the third party students must be redacted. We are working on this process as fast as possible and expect to produce responsive documents in approximately two weeks.” (Sipiora Decl., ¶ 17 & Exh. M.)

On July 18, 2025, plaintiff’s counsel and Pacifica’s counsel engaged in yet another telephonic meet and confer conference regarding the delinquent production of documents responsive to RFP Nos. 76 and 77. (Sipiora Decl., ¶ 18.) During the meet and confer, Pacifica’s counsel agreed to produce all responsive documents in its possession by August 1, 2025. (Ibid.) Plaintiff’s counsel confirmed Pacifica’s commitment to the August 1, 2025 production by letter. (Ibid. & Exh. N.) Pacifica’s counsel also confirmed the commitment via email. (Ibid. & Exh. O.)

Based on the initial trial date of September 19, 2025, the discovery cutoff was August 20, 2025. (Sipiora Decl., ¶ 20.) Due to the discovery cutoff, on August 15, 2025, plaintiff’s counsel sent an email to Pacifica’s counsel advising of an ex parte motion to have discovery motions heard closer to the initial trial date and for leave to complete that discovery after the discovery cutoff date. (Id. at ¶ 21 & Exh. P.) On August 18, 2025, Pacifica’s counsel responded to the email and stated, among other things: “Your ex parte application is unwarranted given that we have told you three times (via phone and email on 7/29 and 8/12) that: (1) there is no trial date in this case, therefore there is no discovery cut-off date at this time; and (2) Pacifica is nonetheless willing to stipulate to allow you to take the deposition of the PMQ after this non-existent discovery cut-off date based on your erroneous understanding that there is a trial date and a discovery cut-off date.” (Id. at ¶ 22.)

On August 18, 2025, plaintiff’s counsel responded to the email from Pacifica’s counsel and informed him that the initial trail date was set as September 19, 2025, and that the discovery cutoff date was August 20, 2025. (Sipiora Decl., ¶ 23 & Exh. P.)

On August 19, 2025, plaintiff filed his ex parte application for order to extend time to hear motions concerning discovery and to complete related discovery. On August 20, 2025, Pacifica filed an opposition to the ex parte application.

On August 21, 2025, the court granted plaintiff’s ex parte application and set a hearing date on the present motion to compel for September 19, 2025.

On August 21, 2025, at 6:06 p.m., an agent for Pacifica sent an email to plaintiffs’ counsel with a link to approximately 635 megabytes of data comprising over 27,000 pages. (Sipiora Decl., ¶ 26.) Prior to that time, Pacifica had only produced a total of 835 pages of documents in this action. (Ibid.) Pacifica did not provide any explanation for the timing of the production of so many documents and did not provide any information regarding which RFPs the documents were responsive to. (Ibid.)

As noted above, the present motion was filed on August 26, 2025.

At the time of the filing of the motion, plaintiff’s counsel did not have the opportunity to thoroughly review the 27,000 pages of documents produced on August 21, 2025, to determine if they were responsive to RFP Nos. 76 and 77. (Sipiora Decl., ¶ 28.)

On September 4, 2025, Pacifica’s counsel sent an email to plaintiff’s counsel stating:

“On August 21, 2025, Defendant, through an e-discovery vendor, served you documents bates stamped DEF 836-DEF 27961. All these documents are responsive to RFP 76. Defendant has now produced all responsive documents in its possession, custody or control responsive to RFP 76 and 77. There are no further responsive documents to RFP 76 and 77 that have not already been produced.

“Attached are the following: 1) updated CCP 2031.280 Chart to reflect the documents recently produced: and 2) a privilege log identifying all the documents withheld as part of this recent production (e.g., student applications that contained confidential student/applicant information).

“Since all responsive documents have been produced, your pending motion is moot. Please let us know if you will agree to withdraw your motion to compel production of documents responsive to RFP 76 and 77 by Friday 12 pm PST.” (Medina Decl., ¶ 12 & Exh. 12.)

By way of declaration of counsel, Pacifica does not dispute the essential facts set forth by plaintiff. Rather, the declaration consists of numerous excuses for failing to produce the requested documents for over a year.

Pacifica argues that it was unaware that the trial confirmation conference is considered the first day of trial for calculation of the discovery cutoff and other relevant dates, and that somehow excuses them from failing to timely respond to the RFPs. In Santa Barbara County, the trial confirmation conference is the first day of trial, and even if it was not, it would not be relevant for the present motion. A party cannot simply refuse to respond to discovery for over a year because they do not believe that there is a pending trial date.

Pacifica’s other excuses are equally unpersuasive. Despite claiming that Pacifica fully complied prior to the filing of the motion, Pacifica did not comply. As noted, Pacifica did not identify which documents, produced on August 21, 2025, at 6:06 p.m., corresponded with each RFP. “Any documents or category of documents produced in response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling shall be identified with the specific request number to which the documents respond.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.280, subd. (a).) Thus, the document production was not complete until two weeks after the present motion was filed. Even if the production had been complete prior to the filing of the present motion, which it was not, it would not excuse Pacifica’s clear abuse of the discovery process.

Pacifica’s failure to timely produce documents in response to the RFP’s was either intentional or the result of an extreme lack of diligence. It is inexcusable, unjustified, and no other circumstances make the imposition of sanctions unjust. Plaintiff attempted multiple times to convince Pacifica to produce the documents without the necessity of law and motion, granted several extensions, and was very patient with Pacifica’s counsel’s unfulfilled representations that the documents would be produced, prior to filing the present motion. Given the circumstances, plaintiff had no choice but to file the present motion. Sanctions are mandatory under these facts.

The discovery statutes evince an incremental approach to discovery sanctions, starting with monetary sanctions and ending with the ultimate sanction of termination. (Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 967, 991.) “The trial court has broad discretion in selecting discovery sanctions, subject to reversal only for abuse. [Citations.] The trial court should consider both the conduct being sanctioned and its effect on the party seeking discovery and, in choosing a sanction, should “ ‘ “attempt [ ] to tailor the sanction to the harm caused by the withheld discovery.” ’ ” [Citation.] The trial court cannot impose sanctions for misuse of the discovery process as a punishment. [Citations.]” (Id. at p. 992]

Plaintiff asks this court to impose monetary sanctions, and an evidentiary sanction that prohibits Pacifica from relying on any documents that it produced following the discovery cutoff date.

Certainly, monetary sanctions are mandatory for the necessity of filing the motion. However, plaintiff’s concerns regarding the effect of the late production can be alleviated by means other than an evidentiary sanction, such as a motion to continue trial with all statutory deadlines calculated by the revised trial date as though it were the initial trial date, expedited depositions, or other statutorily appropriate motions. Using an incremental approach to discovery sanctions, the court will decline to issue evidentiary sanctions at this time. The court also notes that there is a motion to continue trial scheduled for hearing on January 30, 2026. Although this is after trial is scheduled to commence, and neither party has moved ex parte to advance the hearing date, the parties will be ordered to appear on September 19, 2025, at the hearing on the present matter, to discuss relevant dates.

Plaintiff seeks $5,000.00 in monetary sanctions for the necessity of bringing the present motion. By way of declaration, plaintiff’s counsel declares that he has spent more than 10 hours researching and preparing the present motion and supporting papers, and bills at $500 per hour. (Sipiora Decl., ¶ 32.) Sipiora’s co-counsel, Erin Parks, has expended more than two hours on the same matters at $450.00 per hour. (Ibid.) Plaintiff will also incur legal fees for argument of the motion, service costs, and filing fees. (Ibid.) The fees and costs exceed $5,000.00. However, plaintiff only requests the reduced amount of $5,000.00. Based on the court’s experience, the amount of time spent and the hourly rates for plaintiff’s attorneys is reasonable. The requested amount will be imposed against Pacifica and in favor of plaintiff.