Michael Graybill v. Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Department

Case Number

23CV02902

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Mon, 07/29/2024 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

Defendant’s Motion For Evidentiary And/Or Monetary And/Or Issue Sanctions

Tentative Ruling

Michael Graybill v. Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Department

Case No. 23CV02902       

Hearing Date: July 29, 2024                                                   

MATTER:                Defendant’s Motion For Evidentiary And/Or Monetary 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:

For all reasons discussed herein, the motion of defendant the County of Santa Barbara granted as follows:

1. The request for monetary sanctions is granted in favor of defendant County of Santa Barbara and against plaintiff Michael Graybill in the amount of $885.20, to be paid to counsel for County of Santa Barbara, by plaintiff, on or before August 30, 2024.

2. Plaintiff shall provide complete, code-compliant responses to form interrogatories (set one), special interrogatories (set one), and demand for inspection of documents and things (set one), propounded by defendant the County of Santa Barbara, no later than August 19, 2024.

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. (Abanise Dec., ¶ 2 & Exhs. 1-3.)

Court records reflect that 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. (See Jan. 22, 2024, Minute Order.)

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.) To date plaintiff has not provided responses. (Ibid.)

The County now moves for evidentiary and/or monetary and/or issue sanctions.

Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to the present motion.

Analysis:

“[M]ere self-representation is not a ground for exceptionally lenient treatment. Except when a particular rule provides otherwise, the rules of civil procedure must apply equally to parties represented by counsel and those who forgo attorney representation. [Citation.] . . . A doctrine generally requiring or permitting exceptional treatment of parties who represent themselves would lead to a quagmire in the trial courts, and would be unfair to the other parties to litigation.” (Rappleyea v. Campbell (1994) 8 Cal.4th 975, 984-985.)

Plaintiff has not offered any information to explain why he has failed to comply with the court’s previous orders to provide responses to the discovery.

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 twice ordered to respond to the discovery and has failed to do so. However, monetary sanctions have not been previously issued because the County did not request them. It would be inappropriate to issue evidentiary sanctions or issue sanctions, at this time, without first imposing monetary sanctions as a first sanction.

Plaintiff will again be ordered to provide proper responses to the discovery requests. If he fails to respond again, the court will be highly inclined to issue more severe sanctions, up to and including terminating sanctions.

Monetary Sanctions:

“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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030, subd. (a).)

The County requests monetary sanctions in the amount of $885.20 as reasonable fees and expenses as a result of having to bring the current motion. The County has supported the request by including the declaration of Deputy County Counsel Julius Abanise. The court finds the amount reasonable and necessary. Monetary sanctions will issue in the amount requested.