After failing to receive any response from Satraj Hospitality LLC, Sangita Khanna, and Sanjeev Khanna (defendants) to a variety of propounded discovery, or any communication from their counsel concerning it, self-represented Aziz Damak filed motions to compel [on an employment matter]. In addition to other relief, each of the motions requested the trial court issue monetary sanctions of at least $1,000 pursuant to method-specific sanction provisions of the Civil Discovery Act (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2016.010 et seq.; Discovery Act.). Although the court granted all the motions to compel and the nonmonetary relief requested, it denied the requests for monetary sanctions because Damak did not show he incurred any actual expenses as a result of defendants’ failure to respond to the discovery.
Through this mandate proceeding, Damak challenges the denial of monetary sanctions, asserting the denial is contrary to the applicable statutes which make monetary sanctions mandatory. In addition, he contends it runs counter to the deterrent purpose of the statutory provisions and will serve to encourage discovery abuse of self-represented parties by those who are represented by counsel. He requests we either direct the trial court to impose monetary sanctions in an amount to be determined or impose the sanctions ourselves.
As part of a legislatively established comprehensive system of discovery procedures, the applicable statutes control the types of sanctions available and the circumstances under which they may be granted. Longstanding statutory language and relevant case law lead us to conclude it was proper for the trial court to focus, in part, on whether Damak incurred expenses due to defendants’ lack of response. However, the record is devoid of any consideration afforded to a more recently enacted Discovery Act sanctions provision that is an integral component of the statutory scheme and applies notwithstanding any other law. Specifically, section 2023.050, which relates to document production requests, makes a $1,000 sanction against a party and/or attorney mandatory under certain circumstances irrespective of any resulting expenses incurred by the other side. Because the trial court failed to consider whether the requisite factual findings triggering such sanctions could properly be made, the court erred in denying outright the requests for monetary sanctions. Accordingly, we grant Damak’s petition for writ of mandate, in part, and direct the court to reconsider the monetary sanctions requests in accordance with section 2023.050 and this opinion, including our discussion of civility in the legal profession.
There are 0 comments