Opinion
E081163
06-03-2024
WENSESLAO CASTANEDA et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Defendant and Respondent; ARMINE KHATCHATURIAN, Objector and Appellant.
Singleton Schreiber, Benjamin I. Siminou and Neo Khuu; The Homampour Law Firm, Arash Homampour, and Armine Khatchaturian, for Plaintiffs and Appellants. No appearance for Defendant and Respondent, No appearance for Objector and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. No. CIVDS2018804, Gilbert G. Ochoa, Judge. Dismissed in part, reversed in part.
Singleton Schreiber, Benjamin I. Siminou and Neo Khuu; The Homampour Law Firm, Arash Homampour, and Armine Khatchaturian, for Plaintiffs and Appellants.
No appearance for Defendant and Respondent,
No appearance for Objector and Appellant.
OPINION
CODRINGTON J.
I. INTRODUCTION
Plaintiffs Wenseslao Castaneda, et al. (plaintiffs) and defendant State of California, acting by and through the Department of Transportation (Caltrans), resolved their discovery dispute by stipulating to dismissal of plaintiffs' appeal from the trial court's order denying plaintiffs' motion to compel further deposition testimony and production of additional related documents (motion to compel). The parties also stipulated that Caltrans would not oppose the portion of plaintiffs' appeal seeking reversal of the trial court's order imposing $5,500 in discovery sanctions against plaintiffs' counsel under Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.480, subdivision (j).
Plaintiffs include Wenseslao Castaneda, his four children, and Marcelina Miramontes.
Unless otherwise noted, all statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure.
In accordance with the parties' stipulation, plaintiffs' appeal of the trial court's order denying plaintiffs' motion to compel is dismissed. As to plaintiffs' appeal from the sanctions order, although Caltrans was the prevailing party in the trial court on plaintiffs' motion to compel, the trial court's related sanctions ruling is reversed under sections 2025.480, subdivision (j), and 2023.010. We conclude the record supports a finding that plaintiffs had substantial justification for bringing the motion to compel, acted in good faith in bringing the motion, complied in good faith with required discovery procedures, including informal mediation, and ultimately agreed to dismiss their appeal of the motion to compel ruling.
II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
This case arises out of a fatal head-on collision in February 2020, on U.S. Highway 95. Pascuala Castaneda was killed, and her husband, Wenseslao Castaneda, and his sister, Marcelina Miramontes, were seriously injured when a tractor-trailer attempted to pass another car, against oncoming traffic, and struck Pascuala's car.
Plaintiffs filed the instant lawsuit against the driver of the tractor-trailer, the truck driver's employer, and Caltrans. Plaintiffs' claims against Caltrans included dangerous condition of public property (Gov. Code, § 835) and failure to provide traffic warning signals (Gov. Code, § 830.8). One of the primary issues in the lawsuit relevant to Caltrans was whether the highway where the accident occurred should have had a double striped center line, prohibiting vehicles from passing other vehicles by crossing the center line into oncoming traffic.
Plaintiffs served Caltrans with notices of taking the deposition of the person most qualified at Caltrans (PMQ), and related requests for production of documents. Caltrans designated Haissam Yahya, chief of the Caltrans traffic operation division, as the PMQ. Yahya brought documents to his deposition on August 30, 2022, and September 20, 2022. Caltrans had already produced thousands of pages of documents in response to previous document discovery requests.
Yahya testified during his deposition that he did not know the answers to various questions and he did not search for requested emails because he could not do so. He also stated that, because of a previous accident, Caltrans opened a project initiation proposal in April 2007, to assess whether the centerline stripping was adequate where the accident occurred. There was a proposal to change the centerline striping detail to two solid yellow lines, to reduce passing over the center lines. Yahya testified that he did not produce requested collision data for the 2007 project initiation proposal or any field notes, surveys, or other related documents.
Because plaintiffs were dissatisfied with Yahya's deposition testimony and believed additional documents should have been produced, plaintiffs filed in January 2023, a motion to compel further deposition testimony and additional related documents or, alternatively, to produce a different PMQ who could search for and provide the requested information and documents.
Caltrans filed opposition to the motion and requested sanctions against plaintiffs and their counsel. Caltrans argued (1) plaintiffs' notice of motion lacked the requisite specificity; (2) Caltrans already produced the proper PMQ; (3) plaintiffs cannot show good cause for their unreasonably cumulative and duplicative document demands; and (4) the court should restrict plaintiffs' unduly burdensome, unreasonably cumulative, and duplicative discovery method. Caltrans also requested that, because plaintiffs' motion to compel lacked merit, plaintiffs and their attorneys pay Caltrans $10,780 in sanctions under section 2025.480, subdivision (j).
After an unsuccessful informal discovery conference, the court heard plaintiffs' motion to compel further deposition and document production on March 13, 2023, and took the matter under submission. During the hearing, Caltrans argued that the fact that Caltrans's designated PMQ, Yahya, had some but not all foundational knowledge needed to answer Caltrans's questions, and therefore did not know the answer to every question, does not constitute noncompliance with the PMQ deposition request or grounds for compelling another deposition. Caltrans noted it had produced Yahya twice for questioning, and he was the proper designee.
Plaintiffs argued Yahya did not know anything about the subject matter described in the deposition notice and therefore should not have been designated as Caltrans's PMQ for the deposition. Plaintiffs argued Yahya should have talked to retired Caltrans employee, Larry Santori, before Yahya's deposition because he was knowledgeable regarding the subject matter of the deposition. Plaintiffs also argued that not all of the requested documents were produced.
The court indicated that it intended to deny plaintiffs' motion to compel and award sanctions to Caltrans. Plaintiffs argued sanctions were improper because there was no separate motion for sanctions. Also, although sanctions were mentioned in Caltrans's written opposition, the opposition was not filed at least 14 days before the hearing and there was no mention of sanctions when meeting and conferring.
After hearing argument, the trial court denied plaintiffs' motion to compel and granted Caltrans $5,500 in sanctions against plaintiffs' attorneys under section 2025.480, subdivision (j). The court did not elaborate during the hearing on its reasons for imposing sanctions.
On March 21, 2023, the trial court entered a detailed written order denying plaintiffs' motion to compel. The court also ordered plaintiffs' counsel to pay Caltrans $5,500 in sanctions. As to the court's award of sanctions, the court stated in its written order: "[S]ection 2025.480, an opponent may seek sanctions if he is successful in opposing a compel further deposition motion. That is the case here. Additionally, per . . . section 2023.040, Defendant needed to give notice of the intent to seek monetary sanctions and against whom. It did that. The Opposition caption notice and body identifies CalTrans [and] seeks monetary sanctions against Plaintiff and his Counsel."
After plaintiffs filed a timely notice of appeal of the March 21, 2023, order, and filed their appellants' opening brief, the parties entered into mediation of plaintiffs' appeal. On December 19, 2023, the parties signed and filed with this court a "Joint Stipulation for Partial Dismissal of Appeal and Statement of Non-Opposition." The joint stipulation states in relevant part the following:
"3. On September 21, 2023, Appellants filed their opening brief. There, Appellants argued the trial court abused its discretion when it denied their motion to compel in at least some respects. Appellants also argued the trial court abused its discretion when it sanctioned Appellants' counsel, either because it should have granted the motion to compel at least in part, or because there was at least substantial justification for the motion even if it were properly denied.
"4. On October 19, 2023, the parties successfully mediated the underlying action.
"5. Appellants hereby dismiss their appeal of the discovery ruling only. This leaves only the appeal of the sanctions ruling.
"6. Respondent will not oppose Appellants' appeal of the sanctions ruling. Accordingly, Respondent will not file a respondent's brief. This Joint Stipulation shall act as Respondent's statement of non-opposition to Appellants' appeal of the sanctions ruling." The parties also stipulated that "[e]ach side shall bear its own costs and fees incurred on this appeal."
In January 2024, this court reserved for consideration with this appeal, ruling on the parties' stipulation.
III. APPLICABLE DISCOVERY AND SANCTIONS LAW
"If a deponent fails to answer any question or to produce any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing under the deponent's control that is specified in the deposition notice or a deposition subpoena, the party seeking discovery may move the court for an order compelling that answer or production." (§ 2025.480, subd. (a).)
"In a motion under subdivision (a) relating to the production of electronically stored information, the deponent objecting to or opposing the production, inspection, . . . of electronically stored information [(ESI)] on the basis that the information is from a source that is not reasonably accessible because of the undue burden or expense shall bear the burden of demonstrating that the information is from a source that is not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or expense." (§ 2025.480, subd. (d).) "If the court determines that the answer or production sought is subject to discovery, it shall order that the answer be given or the production be made on the resumption of the deposition." (§ 2025.480, subd. (i).)
"The court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with [s]ection 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel an answer or production, 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." (§ 2025.480, subd. (j); italics added.)
Section 2023.010 provides that "[m]isuses 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."
IV. DISCUSSION
Because during mediation of this appeal, the parties stipulated to dismissal of plaintiffs' appeal as to the trial court's ruling denying plaintiffs' motion to compel, and there is no showing of prejudice in doing so, this court will order, as stipulated to by the parties, dismissal of plaintiffs' appeal from the trial court order denying plaintiffs' motion to compel.
The only remaining issue raised in this appeal concerns the discovery sanctions ruling against plaintiffs' attorney. Even though Caltrans is the prevailing party on the motion to compel, reversal of the discovery sanctions order is appropriate because Caltrans is not opposing plaintiffs' appeal of the sanctions order and has not filed a respondent's brief. The parties have stipulated that the joint stipulation shall serve as Caltrans's statement of non-opposition to plaintiffs' appeal of the sanctions ruling. The parties also stipulated that they are "receptive to a tentative ruling that may obviate the need for oral argument."
We may therefore decide the appeal on the record and appellants' opening brief. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.220(a)(2) ["If a party fails to timely file . . . a respondent's brief, . . . [¶] [¶] . . . the court may decide the appeal on the record, the opening brief, and any oral argument by the appellant."].) "'Although some courts have treated the failure to file a respondent's brief as in effect a consent to a reversal, it has been said that the "better rule . . . is to examine the record on the basis of appellant's brief and to reverse only if prejudicial error is found."' [Citation.] This approach gives full effect to the presumption that the judgment or order appealed from is correct and that, in order to prevail, the appellant has the burden to not only overcome that presumption but also demonstrate reversible error. [Citation.]" (Farnum v. Iris Biotechnologies Inc. (2022) 86 Cal.App.5th 602, 608.)
Upon examining the record and reviewing the appellants' opening brief, we conclude that reversal of the sanctions order is appropriate under section 2025.480, subdivision (j) ["the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust"].) "If the party seeking a monetary sanction meets its burden of proof, the burden shifts to the opposing party attempting to avoid a monetary sanction to show that it acted with 'substantial justification.' [Citations.]" (Doe v. United States Swimming, Inc. (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 1424, 1436.)
The record supports a finding here that plaintiffs met their burden of showing that they had substantial justification for bringing their motion to compel, acted in good faith in bringing the motion to obtain additional relevant discovery, and complied in good faith with required discovery procedures, including informal mediation. Plaintiffs did not concede in the joint stipulation that their motion to compel was without merit, and the record demonstrates there was substantial justification for bringing the motion to compel. Caltrans's PMQ designee, Yahya, did not produce requested emails or provide requested information relating to the location of the subject accident, investigation of the accident, or investigation of a previous accident at or near the location of the subject accident. Yahya also testified he did not search for the requested emails because he did not have access to them, and he did not request anyone else at Caltrans to assist him in retrieving them or inquire as to whether they could be retrieved from archival storage.
Under the totality of these circumstances, we reverse the sanctions order against plaintiffs' attorney on the grounds plaintiffs' attorney "acted with substantial justification" in bringing the motion to compel, and "other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust." (§ 2025.480, subd. (j).)
V. DISPOSITION
Pursuant to the joint stipulation of the parties, the plaintiffs' appeal of the trial court's order filed on March 21, 2023, denying plaintiffs' motion to compel, is dismissed. In addition, the trial court's sanctions ruling entered in connection with plaintiffs' motion to compel, is reversed under sections 2025.480, subdivision (j), and 2023.010. Pursuant to the joint stipulation, the parties shall bear their own costs on appeal.
We concur: RAMIREZ P.J., RAPHAEL J.